Talk:Sino-Soviet split

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

我是中国的== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.220.189.226 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Former featured article Sino-Soviet split is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 16, 2004.

Contents

[edit] The Killing Fields

A foot note* for: "The Vietnamese were at first prepared to ignore the murderous domestic policies of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, but as it led to persecution of ethnic Vietnamese communities and clashes along the border, they invaded the country in 1978, removing Pol Pot's regime...."

  • Pol Pot received a three way support from the Chinese, American, and Thai governments.


[edit] Old talk

This seem to be written entirely from the Chinese perspective. Perhapse someone with knowledge of the subject could give some more insight into Soviet thinking and developments. -- stewacide 03:52, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it's widely known that Mao revered Stalin. When Krushchev started the de-Stalinization of the USSR, it offended him. If Mao had kept quiet and not have gotten in to the Soviet Union's personal business, the Sino-Soviet Split would have never happened. So it IS mostly China's fault. I personally believe Mao costliest blunder in his entire career, even more than the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, is the Sino-Soviet Split. If China had the USSR as an ally throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, they could've very well became a Superpower. A Superpower China would've outweighed all of the previous mistakes of the CCP.

Perhaps they could, but my view is that the split arose mainly from Chinese domestic politics was largely driven by China. The Soviet role was mainly reactive and defensive. Most of the narrative therefore has to be about events in China. Adam 04:05, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- This is one of several possible interpretations, and a very Sino-centric at that. The article should indicate that there is no agreement as to the causes of the split. Radchenk (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rename?

Should this be renamed Sino-Soviet Split like Nanjing Massacre and Japanese American Internment? The 's' in split is capitalized in many contexts [1]. --Jiang 05:24, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It won't join and split again (now that Soviet is gone), so this is a specific one. So, yes. --Menchi 00:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] capitalism POV

I disagree. CCP developed the theory of "Socialism with Chinese colors" mainly as rhetoric. Initially Deng Xiaoping had many enemies within the CCP, especially some old revolutionaries who survived the culture revolution. To blatantly go ahead with market reforms would cause bitter in fighting and chaos. So Deng came up with the whole set of "Deng Xiaoping Thinking". Basically it cleverly fit a round peg into a square hole, thus temporarily appeasing some of the diehard communists. Luckily, Deng outlived most of his enemies, and the newer breed of chinese leaders have all embraced Deng Xiaoping's strange ideas. Added to this, Deng's economic programs have had a dramatic effect on China, and vastly improved the people's well being. Therefore no one in the CCP today is seriously opposed to capitalism. However, they still can't call it "capitalism", even though privately everyone (educated people) knows what "socialism" really means in China. It's more like the Orwellian doublespeak. But I don't think Wikipedia should be repeating CCP rhetoric, but instead tell it like it is. To use the chinese terms would be also violate NPOV.

--James

Remove references to restoration of capitalism for NPOV reasons. The PRC has a very well developed theory of why market reform is "advancing socialism" rather than "restoring capitalism" and the definitions of capitalism and socialism in a Chinese context are completely different from Western definitions.

--Roadrunner

It is an objective fact that capitalism has been restored in China - there is a free market, production for profit, private companies, stock exchanges and all the other signs of a functioning capitalist system. That the CCP feels it has to rationalise this as some sort of detour on the road to socialism is understandable, but doesn't alter the fact. Adam 05:35, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some of Roadrunner's edits I have no problems with, but others are just a distortion of what was actually said and done, and inserts euphemistic expressions instead of facts for no good reason. Adam 05:47, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Roadrunner's "tweak" of the last para makes it factually wrong, euphemistic and a good deal more POV that the original version. Adam 06:06, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have not reverted Roadrunner's changes, but I have corrected and de-euphemised some of them. Inserting CCP propaganda phrases into the text makes it more POV, not less. Adam 06:16, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I use this because the Chinese have a definition of capitalism which is different from the one used in the West. In the Chinese define capitalism as the social stage between feudal society and socialism.
I'm pretty insistent on this issue for two reasons. First of all, it's a *definition*, and the Chinese definition of capitalism is not objectively better or worse than the the Western definition. It's very important however to realize that these differences in definitions exist, because to not be aware of differences in definitions makes communications difficult.
Second and more importantly, the Chinese economic system is similar in some ways to capitalism the way that the west defines it, but there are also a *lot* of differences. Just as an example, although there are private companies, there isn't *any* interest on the part of the government for wholesale privatization of state owned enterprises. Most of the companies on Chinese stock markets are state-owned and there is absolutely no intention on the part of the government to change that. (Now there is an intention to make these state-owned companies compete with each other and be generally free from governmental management, and to compete on a level playing field with private companies. But there is no intent at all to privatize most state owned companies, and there never has been.)
The system of land use rights and the contract responsibility system have been called "capitalism" but they are different from private land ownership in some pretty significant ways (for example, that the land is reallocated every few years.)
So the reason I'm insistent that the Chinese government's actions not be labelled as a "return to capitalism" is that no one in the Chinese government sees it that way, and seeing that way leads to some pretty major misleading conclusions about Chinese economic policy. There is a common view that the Chinese government really wants to be capitalist but is unwilling to admit this, and all of this is euphemistic language to for psychological reasons. This view is totally wrong.

-- User:Roadrunner

Just changed the last paragraph to something that I think will satisfy everything. One of the big things is that after Deng Xiaoping, China no longer has any qualms about using capitalist means to advance socialism, whereas Gorbachev never as able to make this conceptual leap.

-- User:Roadrunner

First, I don't accept that the CCP has any right to define the word capitalist for us. Capitalism is a system defined by the exsitence of a capitalist class, private property and production for profit. All these were abolished by Mao, and restored by Deng. That is a "restoration of capitalism." I don't use the expression in a pejorative way (I happen to think it was a good thing), it is simply a description of what happened.


Sure, as long as you admit that you don't have the right to define capitalism for Chinese. The problem is that to understand the Chinese economy and Chinese politics, you have to understand that words mean something radically different.

Capitalism is a system defined by the exsitence of a capitalist class, private property and production for profit. All these were abolished by Mao, and restored by Deng. That is a "restoration of capitalism." I don't use the expression in a pejorative way (I happen to think it was a good thing), it is simply a description of what happened.

Not really. The difference between capitalism and socialism in Western terms is state ownership of the means of production. Deng didn't privatize land (which is still 100% state owned) and state enterprises didn't undergo any real at all privatization until the early 1990's. What Deng *did* do is to introduce some market mechanisms which ended the disfunctional aspects of orthodox socialist industries.
The problem with using terms like capitalist and socialist, is that you then start thinking in terms of one

is good and the other is bad. This makes it difficult to "unbundle" the different elements which are associated with capitalism and socialism. If you think of capitalism versus socialism either you privatize land or you keep it state owned. You don't end up with the system that was in use very successfully until the early 1990's, and you also find yourself unable to deal with the fact that that system is now very broken in 2003.

--User:Roadrunner

However, this is not an article about Chinese economic history, so these are only passing references in a wider narrative. I am not interested in having a big fight about it. Adam 06:44, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"using capitalist means to advance socialism" is a piece of CCP propaganda. Adam

It makes sense if you use the Chinese definitions of capitalism and socialism. Also, it's not only associated with the CCP. Most Chinese anti-CCP democracy activists for example use the concepts of capitalism and socialism in a way that is very different from the way it is used in the West and very similar to the way that it is used by the CCP.

Roadrunner

I am perfectly aware of the Marxist theory of history by the way. It is one thing to say that Marxists believe that capitalism is stage on the way to socialism, it is quite another to say that we have to adopt that definition.

Adam


Re Roadrunners various comments above:

  • When the CCP writes an encyclopaedia, it is free to define capitalism any way it likes. But since we are writing in the west and in English, we should use the standard definitions of words that convey mutually understood meanings between writer and reader, and not any one of many and disputed Marxist definitions of words.
  • In an economy which was then 80% agricultural, the dissolution of the communes and the restoration of a free market in grain (which is what Deng did) amounts to a restoration of capitalist relations of production in the most important sector of the economy, despite the figleaf of nominal state ownership of land. The CCP may chose for political reasons to say that this is all just "socialism with Chinese characteristics" etc, but we are under no obligation to accept that.
  • Anyway I think we have a mutually acceptable text now.

Adam 07:32, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Roadrunner, the definition of capitalism is not a "Chinese" thing. Mao did more to popularize the phrase "restoration of capitalism" than anyone else and during the Cultural Revolution, he targeted Deng Xiaoping for his desire to "restore capitalism." Is Mao any less Chinese for it? Quite the contrary, if anything, it was Deng Xiaoping taking the Western view. 205.179.217.195 07:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved the rather large poster image to later in the article. It's so large that it obstructs access to the TOC and it's just plopped down without any thought to page layout. I moved it to the section of the article from the same period of time and also moved the Nixon image down a few sentences for the same reason. Adam reverted my change and I restored it. Now would be a good time for someone else to weigh in if anyone else has an opinion about the page layout. Daniel Quinlan 18:17, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that having the large image near the TOC is rather obstructive. --`Jiang

Can we have a date for the photo "Mao Zedong and J V Stalin"? It's a rather unfortunate photo -- is there a better one of the two men? It looks like it's Photoshopped. (Actually the current quality looks like a Photoshopped image using daguerrotype technology.)

The photo would have been taken either during Mao's 1950 visit to Moscow or at the 1952 CPSU Congess: I don't know which. All Soviet leadership photos of that era look like that, because they were airbrushed to make Stalin look younger. I don't recall seeing one which looks any better. Adam 04:11, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re: "restoring capitalism" and all the stuff adam and roadrunner talked about above: I don't think we should include any of the text starting with "the great irony..." Regardless of whether you believe it's ironic or not, it's not really wikipedia's place to be pointing out ironies. DanKeshet

The parts of the end I removed was out of left field. The first part made a conclusion, then discredited that conclusion as superficial, thus making the whole part pointless. The latter part I removed (in "Conclusion") did not follow from the article. Rather than acting purely out of national self-interest (aside from ideological adherence) and internal power struggles, the article certainly conveys that that the split was largely because of ideology and clear-cut changes in leadership. Treating "the Soviet Union" and "China" as a single monolithic body, like a single person, over several decades and without distinction between the people and the actual government, is absurd. This generalization is semantically reflected throughout the article; I fixed several, but there are more which need remedy. Centrx 09:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

This is one of the most well written articles I have read on Wikipedia. The writers should kindly take it upon themselves to rewrite some of the science and technology articles that are poorly done. I think references to the Chinese abandoning socialism for capitalism should be removed. The Chinese have transitioned from a planned economy to a market economy. A market economy is not the same thing as capitalism. The government only privatized personal property (not factories, land, etc.) and made arrangements for foreign investment. This development is congruent with socialism in Europe, which occurs under the context of a market economy. Therefore I beleive that Adam's assertion that under the English definition of socialism, China has abandoned socialism is false. I will not edit the article because I am not as eloquent as the above writers, but I think this change should be made. --Anon 163

Well I disagree with you. A market economy, in which goods and services are produced and sold for profit, is a capitalist economy. China has a property owning class, it has a stock market, it has production for profit. What other criteria for capitalism can there be? The fact that some industries are still state owned is irrelevant. That is true in many capitalist countries. You only have to compare China with North Korea to see the difference between capitalism and socialism. When you refer to "European socialism," what countries are you refering to? Germany? Sweden? A mixed economy with some measure of state planning a la Sweden is not socialism. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism, it entails at a minimum the abolition of private property and the common ownership of the means of production. There have been no socialist countries in Europe since 1991. (But thanks for your overall praise of the article, by the way). Adam 02:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I must agree with the first part of your statement "A market economy, in which goods and services are produced and sold for profit, is a capitalist economy" but unfortunatly China is still an example of a socialist country and not a capitalist one. Before, I get on to my point I would like to state that "Capitalsim", "Socialism", "Fuedalism", and "Communism" are not mutally exlusive; therfore it is possible to have elments of both - for example the USA. China's economy is still heavly dependent on the state which inturn is dependent (although often not accountable) to the people. A defining factor of "Socialism" is who controls what Adam Smith would refer to as "labor". In the case of China "labor" is controlled by individuals who often are not responsible,incapable, or unwilling to administer and control production. Furthermore, many companies are not directly accountable to their financiers but exist only to enrich society (which we can see by all the highly uncompetive companies).
Yet, china can not be classified as "Communist" because they have property that "can not be enroched upon". Furthermore it is legal to participate in, what could be called by a "Communist", speculation. Strong goverment control coupled with a strong undertone of social advancement and nationism are hallmarks of "Socialism". While China may have "Capitalistic" features, such as investment and private industries, and even some "Communistic" features, such as goverment business control, China remains a Socialistic society with a healthy dose of Communism and Capitalism.--Frozenport 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

First off, this article is truly excellent, and possibly the best that I've read on Wikipedia. I have to agree with Roadrunner on this issue though, because I don't think that you can really characterize what has happened in the Chinese economy as a transition to capitalism. Its more of a transition to a market economy. The Chinese government has no intent to denationalize industries. I believe that many, if not most, of Chinese workers are still employed by state enterprises. I still think that Jiang Zemin's explanation that this is an essential step in the transition to true socialism is a sham; its an admission that central planning failed. Still though, in Western understanding capitalism involves the majority of economic decisions made by private interests. That certainly is not happening in China. Tom3 23:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Lopez's Deletions

rv: Lopez's deletions. Before deleting material, justification must be presented. None has been presented. Stargoat 02:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

seconded. please justify any changes here. --Jiang
I left a note for him on his talk page. Perusing it, it seems several other users have made the same complaint about lack of discussion when deleting. Apparently, Lopez is upset about a perceived institutional/systemic bias against communism and edits pages accordingly. I don't care one way or the other, but I do hope he comes and discusses the changes with us. —thames 03:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A point-of-view is given in the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split, basically, the side of Russia over that of China. Calling Mao militant, hypothesizing about wars he might start and so forth are an attempt to contribute to a point of view. This article still favors the USSR over the PRC despite my removing or changing the most egregious parts.
Mao was militant. He made Kruschev and others in the Soviet Leadership very uncomfortable. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a POV statement about the Cultural Revolution - "After 1967, China descended into chaos, while Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a pretext to remove all his rivals from power and overthrow the existing structures of state and party." One could just as easily say that China was on a disastrous road before 1967, which was saved by the Cultural Revolution which was the workers of China rising up to take back the system or something like that.
The Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster. Any claim about China being saved by the cultural revolution is a baldfaced lie. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your perception (which was the Kremlin party line) that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster does not belong in the article, it is POV. Everything else you say here is either uninformed or wrong, but this is the most wrong as it is so obviously pushing a point of view, that of the CCP bureaucrats and Kremlin over that of the Chinese people.Ruy Lopez 22:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The fact is that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster. The millions who died, and the billions who suffer today as a result would also agree with me, as well as current Chinese leadership. That you are arguing this at all is ridiculous. You've also not addressed any of my other points. Lopez, you have not presented any evidence of proof of your claims and deletions of material. Stargoat 03:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Small Maoist parties were formed in many countries but they held little influence." seems flat-out wrong. First of all the dismissed Communist Party of Indonesia was the largest communist party in any capitalist country. Further, what influence did non-CPSU communist parties have that Maoist parties didn't? A Maoist party succeeded in taking over the largest socialist organization in the US, Students for a Democratic Society, in the late 1960s.
It might seem to a POV pusher to be flat out wrong, but it is in fact correct. Students for a Democratic Society would be an organization of little influence. The Communist Party of Indonesia will only be remembered as a footnote in history. If you want to though Ruy, the article could use some work. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Perceived causalities are stated as facts. The Great Leap Forward caused the Sino-Soviet split. The Cultural Revolution removed almost all international communist support from China. I certainly wouldn't disagree that these things may have been contributing factors on some level, but the causality expressed is not factual. Another persepctive on the USSR breaking its deal to give nukes to China could be the USSR saying, "we made a deal with the US, you're on your own, screw you". Ruy Lopez 04:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Great Leap Forward did not cause the Sino-Soviet split. Mao's arrogant attitude towards Kruschev, the Soviet Union and his own people caused it. Stargoat 18:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, why are you reverting to your deletions without making comments on the talk page? Stargoat 14:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not reverting deletions without making comments on the talk page, I have made prolific statements, more than once. I'm not sure what the point of arguing how many angels dance on the head of a pin endlessly is. And I don't know what more to say to a person who thinks statements such as that the opinion that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster would belong in the article.
Which is you going into a pointless argument anyhow - I stated that I would *not* insert the opposite perspective into the article, that the Cultural Revolution was a success, and then you go off on a tangent of whether or not the Cultural Revolution was a success or a disaster. My position is neither of the (or, if I'm backed against a wall, both) perspectives belong in the article. You are complaining that I am not taking your bait in debating by explaining the positive aspects of the Cultural Revolution. My point is that the article should not incorporate one or the other bias but be balanced and neutral.
Anyone with knowledge of these events would realize you are arguing the Kremlin party line and that this article is entirely derived from the Kremlin reporting of events. I tried to remove some of the Kremlin biased remarks, and insert some of the CPC's perspective but you do not want this.
One indication of your desire to just cause a problem is your reversion of everything I wrote. Mao must be called militant. That "Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a pretext to remove all his rivals from power" can be unquestioned. The perspective that Maoist parties had any influence is discarded. Ridiculous statements that Students for a Democratic Society had little influence are stated.
Of everything in the article, your defense of the statement "After 1967, China descended into chaos, while Mao used the Cultural Revolution as a pretext to remove all his rivals from power and overthrow the existing structures of state and party." is the most egregious. Your comment on top of this is the Cultural Revolution was an "unmitigated disaster". As I said earlier, I don't really know what to say to someone who takes this position. Ruy Lopez 16:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked thru the first batch of Lopez's corrections, and I have to agree with most of his deletions: guesswork and evaluations must be deleted. Mikkalai 19:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Normality

This section name seems a poor choice for summing up all the later part of the Sino-Soviet Split Jztinfinity 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zedong and Stalin Picture

It says "Joesph" like the English way. However, it needs to be changed to "Josef" the way that, in English, Stalin's name is actually spelled.

Also on this picture it says Stalin's 17th birthday, shouldn't that be Stalin's 27th b-day. He looks a bit older than 17. Trickse (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] causality of Sino-Soviet split

This article documented an important event that affected the lives of millions of people, I believe that it lacks some of the insights of the Sino-Soviet split. While it's difficult to go into the heart of the matter without the source of any Chinese and Russian politburo person(s), the inclusion of some coherent theories would make this article better. One of which is that Russia wanted to place missiles with nuclear capacity in inland China and not delegate the launch authorization to the Chinese leaders. I also want to note that the Sino-Soviet split affected China more than it did Russia. The Chinese loan repayment plan following the Sino-Soviet split, coupled with the failure of the 'Great Leap Forward', was directly reponsible for millions of deaths across China. Sino-Soviet split also had an integral part in reshaping the landscape during and after the Cold War with far-reaching implications. Efnethore 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fake treaty"?

In 1993, the two nations reluctantly signed a fake treaty that formally demarcated the mysterious border and officially ended all outstanding disputes.

That China and Russia would have signed a fake treaty seems like a pretty monumental thing, that probably would deserve an article all by itself! Furthermore, how could a fake treaty cause a border to be demarcated? Hpa 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note on 1962

international events did not "cause" the Sino-Soviet split in 1962, as this article seems to say. The same paragraph contains a claim that the Soviet Union supported India in the 1962 war, this is not the case. Khrushchev in fact sided with China initially, eventually turning to neutrality. Differents arguments exist as to the reasons for his ambigous position, but the fact remains - this should be changed in the article. Radchenk (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Destroy soviet revisionists.jpg

Image:Destroy soviet revisionists.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mao focus

The lead up seems to be unbalance mao felt this or mao did that Gnevin (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)