"We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/quotes.htm
For a better context, see this: https://hexbear.net/comment/3563148
It makes more sense to "support" Putin because this conflict is not happening in a vacuum and its outcome also is important to the conflict between Russia and NATO. Wagner winning would probably represent – at best – another 1993 and may in fact be much worse depending on the influence of genuine Nazis. Mutual destruction would also, much more directly, represent another 1993 because it would mean NATO can roll in whether via tanks or corporate stooges and take over.
Third campism is trot bullshit and should not be supported.
Also the comment right below that one:
To be fair, most Western leftists never read Mao so they never understand why Trotskyism will never work in the third world (yes I consider Russia to be a third world resource colony to the neoliberal West).
Mao gave a special place to the (Chinese) Trotskyists and equated them to 汉奸 (lit. Han Traitors, or traitor to the Chinese people), which is probably the worst insult you can ever get from someone like Mao.
The Trotskyists wanted the Chinese communists to do Lenin’s “revolutionary defeatism” by abandoning collaboration with the national bourgeoisie (i.e. the KMT), but instead act on defeating the KMT government right when the Imperial Japanese Army was rampaging through China. According to the Trotskyists, solidarity with the working class of other countries is all that is needed, and they were willing to let the Japanese imperialists conquer the mainland if that could lead to some universal solidarity among the oppressed class.
This is how fascism wins. The Chinese Trots were hated throughout the country and it would take until the 1970s to see a small resurgence among the Hong Kong leftists.
This is why those of us who grew up reading Chinese history just roll our eyes when we see Western leftists calling for “revolutionary defeatism” in Russia because the exact same thing happened to China more than 80 years ago! The defeat of the bourgeois government in Russia means the victory of the fascists and Western imperialists.
Once again, read Mao (start with the Selected Works of Mao Zedong).
This is a, uh, contentious topic, but I'm going to keep saying it was pretty much entirely Khrushchev's fault.
https://redsails.org/deng-and-fallaci/
Granted Deng was in charge when the PRC invaded Vietnam, so grain of salt, but I think it's worth considering.
i still don't understand the finer points of the split tbh, i know that china and mao did not like the comprehensive sovietization going on as it looked and felt imperialist (capital export, to say nothing of the commanding heights of the economy composed almost entirely of soviet experts/bureaucrats) but i can't find any sources on how the chinese planned to execute de-sovietization and even less on why khrushchev would throw a shitfit over it.
all i can find is that the withdrawal of soviet funds and expertise really fucked up the chinese economy and was the principal factor behind the recession of 1960, which again begs the question, how did the chinese plan on de-sovietizing if it ended up fucking them up so bad? and why would such a proposition piss of khrushchev to the degree that it did?
Yeah you keep being wrong about that. Nikita did nothing wrong. Best communist leader since Stalin, uncontested. It's not even close.
When I cited this as a contentious issue, I was reflecting on Alaskaball having good arguments. I remember your arguments as well, but they are not any good.
Given the quality of your arguments, I would find it insulting if you did find mine convincing. :)
That doesn't make sense. Let us take for granted that I am a moron, that wouldn't mean that your arguments were poor or that you were a moron by proxy if you persuaded me. Rhetoric is not a matter of stratified, isolated tiers in which only a moron may persuade a moron, only an average person can persuade an average person, and only a le intellectual can persuade a le intellectual. This should be plain from the existence of sophists who persuade people who are less clever than them, though their overall intelligence shouldn't be exaggerated from that fact.
If you're going to try "witty repartee," it should be coherent, or else brevity becomes non-sequitur.