What About the Sino-Soviet ‘Split’?

The world in 1949 seemed to be dominated by the duality and consequent antagonism of East and West. In the succeeding period another duality has made its appearance, more important perhaps than the first: the duality of economically underdeveloped or “static” countries and those with a developed or “dynamic” economy. The two dualities do not coincide and do not support the same antagonisms. For the line between developed and static countries cuts the Communist world in two. While Soviet Russia has her place in the world of dynamic economies, China has yet to emerge from the world of static economies. The USSR is in a category with the great capitalistic countries, the United States and Western Europe; and Red China is grouped with a host of non-Communist states. This new duality goes a long way toward explaining the widely-advertised “split” in the Communist camp. Let us see why this is so. In the typical Western analysis, the non-Communist, static countries make up a third world (tiers monde), a world which needs the aid of developed countries. And for such aid to contribute to progress according to this view, public order is a necessary political precondition, and this is why the West has encouraged the emergence of political entities—states—modeled on Western forms.

This analysis would seem to be diametrically opposed to the traditional teaching of revolutionary Communism. In 1923 Lenin wrote: “The final outcome of the struggle will depend on the simple fact that Russia, China, India, etc., make up the immense majority of the world’s population. In recent years this majority has been impelled more and more rapidly to fight for its liberation, and there can be no doubt concerning the end result of this world-wide battle. This is. why the final victory of socialism is guaranteed in advance.” In his final years, Lenin believed that the direct Communization of the Chinese, Indians, and other similar peoples was the surest route to World Revolution; he evidently did not envision any intermediate, “softening-up” steps in the underdeveloped parts of the world. The Chinest Communists continue to hold this view.

JM

About the Author

Jules Monnerot

Featured Tags

The world in 1949 seemed to be dominated by the duality and consequent antagonism of East and West. In the succeeding period another duality has made its appearance, more important perhaps than the first: the duality of economically underdeveloped or “static” countries and those with a developed or “dynamic” economy. The two dualities do not coincide and do not support the same antagonisms. For the line between developed and static countries cuts the Communist world in two. While Soviet Russia has her place in the world of dynamic economies, China has yet to emerge from the world of static economies. The USSR is in a category with the great capitalistic countries, the United States and Western Europe; and Red China is grouped with a host of non-Communist states. This new duality goes a long way toward explaining the widely-advertised “split” in the Communist camp. Let us see why this is so. In the typical Western analysis, the non-Communist, static countries make up a third world (tiers monde), a world which needs the aid of developed countries. And for such aid to contribute to progress according to this view, public order is a necessary political precondition, and this is why the West has encouraged the emergence of political entities—states—modeled on Western forms.

This analysis would seem to be diametrically opposed to the traditional teaching of revolutionary Communism. In 1923 Lenin wrote: “The final outcome of the struggle will depend on the simple fact that Russia, China, India, etc., make up the immense majority of the world’s population. In recent years this majority has been impelled more and more rapidly to fight for its liberation, and there can be no doubt concerning the end result of this world-wide battle. This is. why the final victory of socialism is guaranteed in advance.” In his final years, Lenin believed that the direct Communization of the Chinese, Indians, and other similar peoples was the surest route to World Revolution; he evidently did not envision any intermediate, “softening-up” steps in the underdeveloped parts of the world. The Chinest Communists continue to hold this view.