How Blows the East Wind?

I have tended to underplay what is usually referred to as “the Sino-Soviet conflict.” This is not because I have believed no conflict exists, but, rather, because it gets such massive attention from the approved Kremlinologists that I have wanted, in the small measure within my power, to dilute the prevailing fixation. In particular, I have felt it prudent to stress the continuing commitment of the global Communist enterprise, whatever its internecine fissions, to the destruction of Western civilization and the achievement of a Soviet world order.

According to the accepted theory, the Sino-Soviet conflict is, essentially: 1) ideological—coexistence vs. direct revolutionary struggle; and 2) nationalistic—Russia vs. China. It is my conviction that the ideological dimension is of no great importance, except as an. easy theme for verbalists of all countries, including the two principals, to expound upon. The nationalistic aspect is undoubtedly present and influential. But for even elementary comprehension we must add two other dimensions: 3) personal—Mao (and the Chinese leaders more generally) vs. Khrushchev (and the other Russian leaders; but first of all, Mao vs. any Russian); and 4) organizational—the internal factional struggle for control of the world Communist movement.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

I have tended to underplay what is usually referred to as “the Sino-Soviet conflict.” This is not because I have believed no conflict exists, but, rather, because it gets such massive attention from the approved Kremlinologists that I have wanted, in the small measure within my power, to dilute the prevailing fixation. In particular, I have felt it prudent to stress the continuing commitment of the global Communist enterprise, whatever its internecine fissions, to the destruction of Western civilization and the achievement of a Soviet world order.

According to the accepted theory, the Sino-Soviet conflict is, essentially: 1) ideological—coexistence vs. direct revolutionary struggle; and 2) nationalistic—Russia vs. China. It is my conviction that the ideological dimension is of no great importance, except as an. easy theme for verbalists of all countries, including the two principals, to expound upon. The nationalistic aspect is undoubtedly present and influential. But for even elementary comprehension we must add two other dimensions: 3) personal—Mao (and the Chinese leaders more generally) vs. Khrushchev (and the other Russian leaders; but first of all, Mao vs. any Russian); and 4) organizational—the internal factional struggle for control of the world Communist movement.