>>510279976
The Soviet-Chinese split in the mid-20th century wasn’t just about internationalism versus sovereignty. It stemmed from ideological, strategic, and geopolitical tensions. The Soviets, under Khrushchev, pushed a form of internationalism that prioritized Soviet leadership of the global communist movement, which Mao saw as imperialistic. China, under Mao, wasn’t purely nationalist in the modern sense but emphasized self-reliance and revolutionary purity, partly due to distrust of Soviet dominance and partly due to practical concerns about China’s development and security. The “global communist system” was a shared ideal, but both sides disagreed on how to get there and who should lead.
Your point about modern China is partially correct. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has shifted dramatically since Mao’s era. Post-Deng Xiaoping reforms introduced market mechanisms, making China’s economy more state-capitalist than strictly communist. The CCP maintains a socialist framework but pairs it with strong nationalist rhetoric and policies. This includes assimilating minorities (e.g., Uyghurs, Tibetans) through cultural and political dominance, often justified as national unity. The term “Socialist Uniparty system” fits in that the CCP tolerates no political competition, but nationalism, not just socialism, is a core pillar.
The comparison to historical regimes that combined socialism, nationalism, and assimilation (e.g., Nazi Germany’s “National Socialism”) is provocative but flawed. China’s system lacks the racial ideology or militaristic expansionism of fascism. Instead, it’s a pragmatic blend of authoritarian socialism and Han-centric nationalism, prioritizing stability and economic growth over ideological purity.
7/13/2025, 6:39:30 PM
No.510279146
>>510279472
>>510279510
>>510279590
>>510279825
>>510279912
>>510280150
>>510280314
>>510280383
>>510280558
>>510281059
