China Communist Party Was Always A Controversy, Before And After Its Revolution, Before And After Mao: Comrade DV Rao


Comrade DV Rao, key leader of Telangana People’s Armed Struggle(1946-51). He is remembered on his death anniversary today.


Even as the China Communist Party (CCP or CPC) celebrated its centenary (1921-2021 July 1), there is a shrill campaign against it in the global media, and even by some Leftist parties and their media. Many attribute it to post-Mao developments in China, alleging it renounced Marxism and became capitalist-minded.

The fact is CCP was always a controversy, before and after its revolution, before and after Mao, in the international communist movement (ICM). It had its own line, independent of CPSU or Comintern.

Mao was a great Marxist-Leninist who enriched it with experiences of revolution in China, a backward country of the East. He upheld Lenin and Stalin too, but the Russian line was the Bible Mao did not accept: China had its own line in revolution, the path of people’s war, as well as in socialist construction. The controversy has little to do with post-Mao politics.  

That was the view of veteran communist revolutionary (CR) leader DV Rao (1917 June 1-1984 July 12), who was a CC Member of undivided CPI by 1950, and who was a keen observer of the world scene, of the international communist movement (ICM) and CI. He was a Member of Loksabha (1957-62), but better known as the key leader of Telangana peasant armed struggle(1946-51). He wrote articles on questions related with ICM and CPI, with an independent and meticulously objective outlook.

Readers of , which published much on and by DV Rao, are aware of him.  See for more on DV Rao and his views :

Comrade DV Rao: Unique Role In  Indian Communist Movement

“DV Rao the father of the theory and practice of agrarian revolution in India” : Anand Teltumbde

While remembering him on the occasion of his death anniversary, a brief review of his views on ICM as seen by undivided CPI is given below.

This is part-1 of this article. Part-2 will deal, among other issues, with controversies about socialist construction, as explained by DV Rao.    

***                     ***

The undivided CPI was most of the time anti-CPC, and anti-Mao

The Indian communist movement was no exception, he wrote: Most of the time, it was anti-CCP, anti-Mao too, before and after Mao. Its international line was always afflicted with opportunism, tailism, and did not stand on its own legs, explained, DV Rao, who died on July 12, 1984.

For the undivided CPI, Russian line was the veda, which however it never seriously tried to implement. CPC was always an anathema, except for the communist revolutionaries of Telangana and Andhra, who published not only reports of China’s revolution, but even Mao’s New Democracy in Telugu, even before China had its revolution in 1949. Based on legendary Telangana’s experiences, it advanced an Andhra Thesis which the Central polit bureau, then led by BTR, did not care to look in before they rejected it with contempt. They had contemplated of an insurrection, of Russian model, which ended in a fiasco.      

DV Rao upheld Marxism-Leninism but always insisted on its application to suit India’s  concrete conditions. He upheld proletarian internationalism, but insisted that working for Indian revolution was its key task.  He was opposed to tailism and opportunism in the name of proletarian internationalism; he had distinct views and practice during Quit India days, when the then CPI had displayed worst opportunism and class collaboration. and was despised for that. It was revolutionary Telangana that came to its rescue. See this article :

 His independent views on related issues from the war period (of 1940s) till his death in 1984 are worth studying.

DV Rao’s basic approach was this:

“ We CRs have no such paths imported from outside. Our path is Indian path arising out of revolutionary experiences of our own country. We learn from revolutionary experiences of other countries. We rely on those of ours. Herein lies the strength of ours.” (p.113)  

(Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought Is Our World Outlook, A Compilation of Articles by DV Rao, Proletarian Line Publishers, Hyderabad, 1993 December. All quotes from DV Rao in this article are from this book unless stated otherwise.)

The Comintern was dissolved in 1943, and that was no problem for CCP, DV Rao wrote, but was a problem for CPI, “whose dependence on Comintern was total….though formally independent, it continued to be dependent on ‘international guidance’. (p.106).

The undivided CPI was opposed to CCP. “ The polit bureau (1948-50) headed by BT Ranadive condemned Mao as reformist simply because he worked out a correct strategy, tactics, course of revolution, and led the New democratic Revolution successfully. There were no party-to-party relations between CPI and CPC by that time…it was a clear indication that there existed an anti-CPC stand by 1948 itself.”  (p.106).

CPI had established relations with CCP later, but only to be broken again around 1960 thanks to anti-china activities by Ajoy Ghosh, General secretary (1954-62), that peaked during India-china war (1962).

Indradeep sinha, a CPI ideologue-leader  wrote in CPI journal New Age  (June 5, 1983) an article blaming CPC, that he alleges does not accept Marxism-Leninism, “but substituted it by Mao Zedong Thought” as its guiding ideology.  Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought is the outlook of CCP, enshrined in the Constitution, of CCP as also of China. He brazenly distorts this!

Sinha blames CCP for the splits in CPI. It is a popular notion too. DV wrote:

“It is not a fact. The split had come into the open during Telangana Armed struggle itself. A section of leadership set up a rival centre at Bombay, started a journal, Open Forum, …circulated through breadth and length of  India.” Its explicit purpose was to condemn the armed struggle. (p.118)

Documents of that period are ample proof of the same. DV’s document, adopted by Andhra secretariat of CPI, Refutation Of Wrong Trends Advocating Withdrawal Of Telangana Armed Struggle (1949),discusses the issues of Russian path, china path, and Indian path.

“Thus there was a defacto split in the united CPI eversince 1950, which was formalized in 1964.”  (p.118). DV points out splits within CPI (Dange, Mohit Sen factions) and CPM (MCPI etc); the 1964 split had nothing to do with CPC, as alleged in New Age.

In the wake of Great Debate and India China war, there were ideological and political differences inside CPI as well as CPM, but they were not caused by CPC. Though popularly it was said that CPI was pro-Russia, and CPM was pro-China, it was a rather shallow understanding.

There were indeed ideological differences, on issues raised in the Great Debate, but there was no polarization on that basis into distinct groups.

The CPM (DV was a CC leader in it) appeared pro-China, and had relations with CCP for a brief time, but there was a rupture since 1967 Naxalbari revolt.

DV explains: The CCP-CPM relations “ were suspended by CPM for all practical purposes after the formation of CPM” and the Calcutta Congress  in 1964. “The reason for this was: there were three lines of thinking” among those who joined to form CPM. One was severely critical of CPSU, and supported CPC (they were more in Bengal and Andhra). Some were critical of both CPSU and CPC, more in kerala. The third wing was more critical of CPC, and less about CPSU, more in Bengal. Ultimately, CPM turned anti-CPC, as ML forces broke away post-Naxalbari (1967-68).    

Some ML groups (Charu Majumdar et al) began with the slogan: China’s Chairman is our Chairman! The CPI-ML group had “recognition” of CPC too, and there was a spring thunder in People’s Daily! But DV Rao and TN were not taken in by the thunder;  they comprehensively opposed that line very early, by  1970, and wrote a detailed document against that (Left Trend Among Indian Revolutionaries, by DV Rao 1970.). In fact, the earliest writing critical of Left adventurist line was written in 1968 December, and put before a plenum of 1969 April. For exposing their opposition to Mao’s Thought by way of distorting Mao, DV –TN were branded as latest brand of revisionists. Later, several groups across India rejected the Left line of Charu variety. They distorted Mao’s people’s war path and degenerated into annihilation of class enemy. DV Rao opposed it from its very inception; DV and TN  had met Charu Majumdar, and exposed his wrong line, as early as 1969-70. And they were expelled by the Majumdar faction from AICCR for that.

Representatives of the ML party (Kanu Sanyal, Souren Bose etc) later had gone to China and met Mao and Zhou, but only to be told that their slogans and line were wrong. (Related documents are published.) There in China, they were asked by CPC leaders about the agrarian revolutionary line of Andhra comrades (TN and DV), but the Indian ML leaders dishonestly feigned ignorance, though they had met both and were criticized.

If undivided CPI had messed up and tailed Russian line in 1940-50 period, the CPI-ML factions  messed up and tailed so-called China line in 1968-72 period. But neither took lessons from the experiences. DV Rao did that in his writings and practice.          

The ML groups which began with such a slogan soon turned anti-CPC with their own dogmatism. They had opposed Mao by distorting his correct theories and views and aped him too in his mistakes.  They had opposed Mao’s international line too, even while formally siding with him in the Great Debate.

We shall see more of that in the part-2  of this article.

***                          ***

A Jaundiced View Against China, As Old As Modern China

The anti-CCP politics are aggravated today more than ever, across the world, and in India too. There is an orchestrated campaign, a virtual media war against China, led by USA.  Not only the imperialists, even “Leftists” join the chorus, both in the world, and in India.

It is an inobjective if not a prejudiced view, indeed a jaundiced view against China:

Around the world, negative views of China are at historic highs, is the title of a report in NYT on CCP Centenary Day (July 1). “Negative views of China are now at or near historic highs”, it said. The basis is a Pew survey of “17 major countries and territories” ….which are all  advanced economies of the world …i.e., capitalist-imperialist powers, a fact put in small print, or omitted.

It is such a small but influential world, of imperialist camp, who imposed for decades on the entire world, their interests through IMF, WTO and the like, and their media for decades spoke of TINA factor. Now many of them turned protectionist, recently renewed sanctions against Chinese entities.

That small world is presented as “around the world.” A Reuters BEIJING July 6, 2021 report reads:

“As U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has sought support from like-minded democracies including the European Union and Japan to coordinate a tougher stance against China, Beijing has doubled down on seeking support and affirmation from friendly nations such as North Korea and Serbia.”

“..from friendly nations such as North Korea and Serbia” ?! 

It is in fact a report of a virtual gathering of representatives of 500 parties from 160 countries, but Reuters says, “such as Russia, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Burkina Faso.”

“Together, we must oppose all acts of unilateralism in the name of multilateralism, hegemony and power politics,” Xi told the meeting.

“Looking from the angle of ‘My Country First’, the world is narrow and crowded, and often full of fierce competition,” Xi said in apparent reference to the “America First” policy.

UN and FAO are on record saying that China lifted 800 million people out of poverty in shortest time, a record in mankind’s history. It was thanks to the communist rule, led by Mao the icon of revolution, and his comrade, revolutionary veteran  Deng who later became an icon of  modern China’s construction. The entire world knows it. The media told us often that capitalist China by and large forgot Mao. But unmindful of its vulgar distortion, NYT now reported:

“Forty-five years after his death, Mao Zedong remains the iconic symbol of a Communist-controlled China and its complicated legacy. To his critics, he was a ruthless dictator who presided over famine and political upheaval that together caused tens of millions of deaths within his own country.”

If that is a report from the imperialist mouthpiece, a Leftist writer from the same USA, Raymond Lotta, of  Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, writes an article (he is an advocate for the new communism developed by Bob Avakian. This article was originally published at, republished in, in which he says:

“China’s capitalist-imperialist rulers are seizing on this 100th anniversary of the CPC to whip up nationalism and chauvinism. They are putting their growing military might on display. And putting the U.S. and other imperialists on notice that China will brook no interference in pursuing its “legitimate” great-power economic and strategic interests in central Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”

“ For their part, the U.S. imperialists are seizing on this 100th anniversary to whip up anti-China chauvinism and to assert their “right” and “responsibility” to prevent China from upending the global, post-World War 2 international order established by the U.S. An order resting on a vast network of globalized exploitation,  and brute military force. For all the sharp, and sharpening, differences within the U.S. imperialist ruling class, on this there is basic unity: China is viewed as America’s chief adversary and “threat” to U.S. global supremacy.”

And Pentagon, with 700-800 bases around the world, has been at work against China.

  The jaundiced NYT proved to be more objective than the Leftist:

The biggest applause from the came when he (Jinping) declared that China would not be pushed around. The Chinese people will never allow foreign forces to bully, oppress or enslave us, he said, clad in a Mao suit. Whoever nurses delusions of doing that will crack their heads and spill blood on the Great Wall of steel built from the flesh and blood of 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

China seeks to counter “such a brute military force.” That is “whipping up nationalism and chauvinism?”

The Chinese people will never allow foreign forces to bully, oppress or enslave us, said Jinping. Lotta distorts that : “China will brook no interference in pursuing its “legitimate” great-power economic and strategic interests in central Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”

Lotta wrote on CPC-100 and China : “They are putting their growing military might on display.”

NYT reported:

“July 1 Thursday’s festivities did not include a military parade like the one in 2019 that celebrated the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, but the military still provided a backdrop…A few police officers stood on sidewalks in the downtown area around the square, which was closed to traffic. But the security was mostly unobtrusive, with numerous surveillance cameras perched …”

NYT reported there was no holiday declared on July1, neither in China nor even Beijing. It was business as usual except that programs were live-cast.

But to Lotta that is  “ Whipping Up Nationalism-Chauvinism.”

Lotta acknowledges : “ For all the sharp, and sharpening, differences within the U.S. imperialist ruling class, on this there is basic unity: China is viewed as America’s chief adversary and “threat” to U.S. global supremacy.”

We saw how Biden sought to drum up support for his anti-China campaign at the recent NATO conclave. China declared that it would resist the bully and bullying.

Lotta equates the bully, and the one who seeks to oppose the bully with this subheading on China :  Whipping Up Nationalism-Chauvinism… Intensifying Great Power Rivalry :

“Both sides are inflaming tensions. And the danger of escalation towards war between these two equally exploitative and oppressive powers is growing.”

To say so is most acceptable, even pleasing, to the imperialist media.

Xi Jinping is projected by the Big media as a megalomaniac who made laws to make his Presidency permanent.

Many “leftists” also parroted the story. They forget Mao was the paramount leader for decades until he died. So was Castro for Cuba. But they write only about China, and Jinping. It was post-Mao China led by Deng who introduced the concept of retirement of top leaders. And he set an example by retiring when he was in the prime of his leadership.  It was Deng who set a two term limit. Now that limit is removed. It does not make Jinping permanent.

CPC is the leader that lifted 800 million people out of poverty in the shortest possible time. China that had pecapita GDP that equaled that of Bangladesh a few decades ago is now world’s second largest economy. CPC leader Jinping , is he the megalomaniac?

Lotta represents the RCP-US. In their official website, they speak of their leadership:

“ We are followers of BA (Bob Avakian). And you need to become followers of BA too. He is an old white guy—yes, deal with it! …There never has been a leader like this in this country and there is no other leader like this in the world now. We cannot afford not to follow this leadership if we ever want to get free and put an end to this madness…”

“A leader like this has never before existed in the history of this country, and this leadership is of tremendous importance for the emancipation of all humanity.” (February 8, 2020 |…

Compare a leader of a party that led 1400 million, solving their basic problems…and leading to top table…

“Lotta was one of the initiators of the ‘Set the Record Straight’ project which has the stated aim of refuting what it terms “the lies spread in the media, mass-market books, and mainstream scholarship about the Soviet and Chinese revolutions – upholding the overwhelming achievements [while] pointing to problems, shortcomings, and gross distortions.”

Perhaps that aim is now reversed!

***                                    ***

What is the character of the line and leadership of RCP-US?

“Bourgeois Electoral Bullshit”, they said, but gave a call to vote for Biden!

Their politics and policies can be understood from the Statement by Robert Bruce Bob Avakian(BA) (born 1943) of August 1, 2020, on the eve of US Presidential election.

It refers to the State of US, its election system, the goals of revolutionary communists (revcoms) of and says:

“Our fundamental goal, and guiding star, remains: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS!”; and “that no fundamental change for the better can be brought about under this system.”

Speaking of “the “normalcy” of this system” irrespective of who is leading US, “It has always included unjust wars for empire, and continuing crimes against humanity. It now poses a threat to the very existence of humanity through its increasing devastation of the environment and the ever present threat of nuclear war.”

The electoral process continues to be what we revcoms have called it—BEB (Bourgeois Electoral Bullshit). It remains the case that no fundamental change for the better can come about through this electoral process, and that, in general and overall, voting under this system serves to reinforce this system...”

“Bourgeois Electoral Bullshit,”  but vote for Biden!

“But this election is different”;  with “Trump as a fascist”  at home…“And it is certainly not unthinkable that Trump would move to create a “national emergency”—for example, by carrying out acts of war, against Iran or possibly even China. ”

“At this critical hour, every appropriate means of non-violent action must be utilized to remove this regime from power…” and calls for “using all appropriate means to work for the removal of this regime must include voting against Trump,,, To be clear, this means not a “protest vote” for some candidate who has no chance of winning, but actually voting for the Democratic Party candidate, Biden, in order to effectively vote against Trump.”

“This is not because Biden (and the Democratic Party in general) have suddenly become something other than what they are: representatives and instruments of this exploitative, oppressive, and literally murderous system of capitalism-imperialism.”

“Simply relying on voting to oust this regime will almost certainly lead to very bad, even disastrous results.”

But vote for Biden to counter Trump! That is RCP tactics.

And what are the politics of Biden? See the comments given below by Gary Leupp,  Professor of History at Tufts University,in , August 13, 2020. They are worth reading now, not for RCP’s sake, but Biden is now in power, and we see his unfolding politics. Hence long excerpts are given below:

“The announcement that Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, is urging party members and supporters to vote for Joe Biden in the upcoming election is surprising, even shocking to those familiar with the group. But maybe not so difficult to understand…”

“Bob Avakian has emphasized the similarity between the two (ruling capitalist) parties in this country, and the role of elections in legitimating capitalist rule. The party has taught that time spent in electoral politicking is wasted, and better spent building towards revolution. Which is also true, actually, in my opinion.”

But still vote for Biden, RCP called, to defeat Trump!

The following passages are worth studying to understand tactics and Biden’s foreign policies.

Compare Trump policies with those of his predecessors. Gary Leupp writes:   

“ During his first term in office Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada. George H. W. Bush invaded Panama, then launched a war on Iraq. Bill Clinton in his first term bombed Bosnia, later bombing Serbia to create the state of Kosovo. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, on the basis of lies. Barack Obama led NATO in destroying Libya. (One should always recall that it was the first part-African American president who led the way to destroy the African continent’s most prosperous and independent country. Yes it’s ironic that the supposedly anti-war Nobel Peace Prize winner would—on the appeal of Hillary Clinton—okay the slaughter of Libyans and the destruction of their independent state because Gadhafy didn’t sufficiently kiss ass after giving up his WMDs  and indicating to the rest of the world especially the North Koreans that they must never repeat that stupid error.)

“ Donald Trump in contrast has invaded no country. If this is a fascist credential, he lacks it. He dropped a MOAB bomb on Afghanistan (April 2017) to prove what a man he is, klling reputed ISIL militants. But he is withdrawing from Afghanistan—to the alarm of the Democrats!

He blasted a Syrian air force base (supposedly to punish Syria for use of chemical weapons) but has withdrawn most troops illegally sent by Obama into Syria—again, to the fury of the Democrats who demand continuation of support for “our allies, the Kurds”!

“ He is withdrawing 12,000 troops from Germany, where the people are happy to tell them Auf Wiedersehen, and the Democrats wail that he is giving another gift to Vladimir Putin!…

“ Over 275 DNC delegates have written to Biden (8/5) calling his foreign policy team “a horror show” with a record of backing “disastrous” military operations. High on Biden’s VP list is Susan Rice, Obama’s UN ambassador who finessed the UNSC resolution 1973 authorizing the humanitarian intervention in Libya that quickly turned into a vicious regime-change effort…

“During the Arab Spring, when youth throughout the Arab world sought democratic reforms, toppling dictators, Obama’s secretary of state Hillary Clinton saw opportunity for U.S.-induced regime change. Hence the U.S. covert and overt activities in Syria, and the destruction of Libya…

“Susan Rice has never to my knowledge expressed regret for her role in the destruction of Libya. She will surely if the presidential pick face questions about Benghazi (why didn’t you do more to protect our diplomats?) but not about the war itself. Rice has condemned the U.S. pullout of troops from northern Syria, condemning Trump for “betraying the Kurds.” One surmises this is Biden’s opinion.

“ Another woman on Biden’s VP list is Tammy Duckworth, a half-Thai American military veteran who lost both legs in the Iraq War in November 2004. (TV rules ensure that she is thanked for her service at every interview.) What was she doing when she lost her legs? She was co-piloting a Black Hawk helicopter and trying to kill Iraqi people (“insurgents”) in their invaded country. Trying to make the people submit to occupation, in a war based entirely on lies, resulting in half a million deaths….

“The corporate media avoids reportage on the ongoing suffering caused by the U.S. wars on and interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan. It cannot present a coherent anti-imperialist critique because it is beholden on the military-industrial complex for advertising support…

“ Yet, giving no attention to the issue of war, not acknowledging its absence in this period, the RCP says Trump is a fascist, thus must be voted out (by all non-fascists) by all means..

“ I am not advocating a vote for Trump of course. I am questioning participation in the electoral farce in general (as the RCP has done consistently until now), and support for Biden on the specific ground that he is somehow less “fascist” than Trump. The RCP’s analysis as usual is wooden, dogmatic.

“ Whereas it once disparaged the idea that “fascism” was a form of capitalism requiring united fronts of democratic opponents, it now identifies “fascism” as the reason for mobilizing the people to back Biden.

“ Fox News is having a field day with this of course. They want to embarrass Biden, reinforcing the perception that he’s  being controlled by the Democratic Party’s progressive (“radical”) wing. The big picture is that the U.S.’s only enduring (self-defined) Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party has morphed into a reformist antifascist party without ever really grasping what fascism is…

“ This is worse than your normal “lesser evil” bourgeois politics. It’s a statement of indifference to the historical record (in which Biden cheer-led the Iraq War). It’s also a statement of unconcern for the world awaiting the next administration’s first attack.

“ Benvolio’s oath remains valid: “A plague on both your houses!” Whoever is elected must be resisted. But to choose which to resist…preferring one of these thugs to the other…no. You have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line between myself and the Wall Street capitalist-imperialist parties. I am invited to an election, as I might be to a home party; I decline because there’s nothing there for me.

No reason in my adult life to vote for Ford over Carter, Reagan over Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Bush over Clinton, McCain over Obama, Romney over Obama, Trump over Clinton. And now, probably: Trump versus Biden.

“ Question for discussion: What law has Trump signed more fascist than the 1994 Crime Law? And what is the relationship between institutionalized racist police murder, fascism, and the police unions that Biden has doted on throughout his career? The Wall Street Journal reports “Joe Biden spent years cultivating close relationships with police unions” in the 1980s and 90s while he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, backing moves to protect cops from prosecution. His emphatic rejection of “police defunding” reflects this longstanding connection.

“ Is this really a clear-cut conflict between fascism and democracy? Or is reality more complicated than that?”

(Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of several books. He can be reached at: [email protected] )

So they are the tactics of RCP… Whatever the merits …but if CCP has its own strategy and tactics to counter imperialism led by USA, they can’t be even heard? 

Instead, Lotta characterizes thus:

“Both sides are inflaming tensions. And the danger of escalation towards war between these two equally exploitative and oppressive powers is growing.”

***                              ***

 “Not the Party of Mao and Revolution…”,wrote Lotta.

The fact is CCP was always a controversy, both before and after China had its revolution in 1949 October, among communists of not only India but the world. One chief reason was that CCP founded in 1921, with the help of Communist International (CI), took a line independent of CI, ever since 1935 when Mao came to be established as an unquestioned leader.

The CCP line was often at variance with the line of CPSU that was the leader of Communist International (CI), even when it was led by Stalin, whom CCP respected but did not accept uncritically. That was so during and after its revolution of 1949, with its own distinct path of People’s war. Post-war period (1945) saw CCP differing from a war-weary CPSU led by Stalin, and had carried on its revolution against KMT, much against Stalin’s advice. Once the revolution culminated in 1949, Stalin appreciated the independent line of CCP, rather than nursing a grudge.

CCP had differed with post-Stalin CPSU, rejected leaders like Khrushchev, who in 1956 (20th Congress of Soviet party) damned Stalin, and later rejected the Brezhnev team. Great Debate began soon after, and continued into early 1960s. The Debate had issues of war and peace, peaceful transformation, peaceful co-existence, evaluation of Stalin etc. CPSU branded CCP as national chauvinist and anti-Marxism-Leninist, while China rejected CPSU line as one of Modern Revisionism.

China differed with Russian path of development very early and had its own line for socialist construction that suited China’s concrete situation. Because of differences, aggravated by Soviet realpolitic, Soviet Union in 1960 abruptly withdrew its technical and material support.

China opposed military interventions in Czechoslovakia (1968), and China called it as social imperialism, when Soviet Union used Warsaw Pact for the latter (Czech) aggression. 1969 saw Soviet troops attacking china, and military encirclement of China that was formally ended by Gorbachev in 1989. China opposed Soviet military invasion of  Afghanistan.

Communist parties of Soviet Union and Vietnam had supported Indira’s emergency (1975-77), and asked Indian communists to support her, which the CPI did.

Soviet Union and CPSU were always deemed as leaders of world communist movement. As such, parties influenced by CPSU had differed with CCP, often branding it as national chauvinist and anti-Marxist-Leninst. But China led by Mao and later Deng were not deterred by that. They followed a line they deemed correct for China.

Thus CCP being opposed by many had little to do with post-Mao developments, as it is painted by some and believed by the gullible.  

***                     ***

MA Krishna is a mediaperson.


Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter


Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

Join Our Newsletter

Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News