Essay:Refuting Fellow Traveler On Soviet Social Imperialism

A Cultural Revolution Poster With the Text At the Bottom Saying, "Let Mao’s Philosophy Be Our Strongest Weapon!"

This article is a refutation of this video by Fellow Traveler

The Soviet Union today is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the grand bourgeoisie, a fascist German dictatorship, and a Hitlerite dictatorship. They are a bunch of rascals worse than De Gaulle. - Chairman Mao Zedong

Introduction

Brief History

On March 15th, Comrade Joseph Stalin would pass from an assassination that was a result from a conspiracy made and executed by revisionist party members. Georgy Malenkov would then become de-facto leader of the Soviet Union and CPSU where he would later create the conditions for Nikita Khrushchyov to take over who would later initiate "De-Stalinization" after the policy was criticized by Albania and China that would later result in the Sino-Soviet Split as Khrushchevites and Anti-Revisionists split the Communist movement. However after Brezhnev's coup and Gorbachev's rise the Khrushchevites would be regulated into obscurity and very little would remain. Except some still hold the revisionist position of Khrushchevism, including the author of the video we are refuting.

What is Social Imperialism?

In order to figure out whether the Soviet Union was Social-Imperialist we must define it, Comrade Lenin in his 1916 work, "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism" denounced Social-Democrats and Capitalist Roaders who supported the World War and who also supported the Bourgeoisie, in which he used the term, "Social-Imperialism" to describe them, however what does this word mean? Social imperialism, like social fascism, social pacifism, social chauvinism etc. means that someone is pretending to be a socialist (or to have socialism if we are talking about a country) but in reality is just an imperialist, a fascist, a pacifist, a chauvinist etc. Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China used this term to denounce the Imperialist and Capitalist nature of the USSR during Khrushchev and Brezhnev and so on.

Arguing against the avowed and naive social-imperialists (men like Lensch) who justify Germany’s participation in the war as a means of destroying England’s monopoly, Kautsky “corrects” this obvious falsehood by another equally obvious falsehood. Instead of a cynical falsehood he employs a suave falsehood! The industrial monopoly of England, he says, has long ago been broken, has long ago been destroyed, and there is nothing left to destroy.

In short, Socialist in name, Imperialist in deeds. Social-Imperialism isn't just an insult but a label with a scientific basis.

Addressing Fellow Traveler's Initial Points

One of the motivations for why the Chinese split from the USSR had to do with the Soviets refusal to give back territory that they had inherited from the Russian Empire whom a century prior had seized and Concord said territory from the Chinese.

Timestamp: 0:22

...

At the height of the cultural revolution by which Chinese red guards directly led skirmishes into Soviet territory raiding border outposts and killing dozens of Russian soldiers.

Timestamp: 2:28

This is not the full picture, while it was indeed one of the motivations saying that the Chinese were the aggressors and implying they wanted territory back through violence, this is just not true, the Communist Party of China always held to resolve the border question through diplomacy it's also important to note that the Chinese did not necessarily want outer Manchuria or more territory from the Soviets:

The Communist Party of China and the Chinese Government have always held that boundary questions should be settled by negotiations through diplomatic channels and that, pending a settlement, the status quo of the boundary should be maintained and conflicts averted. This was our stand in the past and remains our stand at present. T'lee development of the Sino-Soviet boundary question to its present state is wholly the responsibility of the Soviet side.

The Soviets also tried to invoke the "Sino-Russian Treaty of Peking" to justify Chenpao being Russian territory however the Chinese responded by saying:

With regard to the unequal treaties imposed on China by tsarist Russia, the great Lenin always stood for their annulment' On September 2'l , 1920, the Government of Soviets led by Lenin solemnly proclaimed: It "declares null and void all the treaties concluded with China by the former Governments of Russia, renounces all seizure of Chinese territory and all Russian concessions in China and restores to China, without any compensation and for ever, a1l that had been predatorily seized from her by the Tsar's Government and the Russian bourgeoisie".

Fellow Traveler also brought this quote up to substansiate the claim that the Red Guards called the first shots and killed Russian soldiers:

Tensions on the border began as early as 1959 and progressed steadily in frequency and intensity. Although it is unclear which side initiated many of the early skirmishes along the border, Beijing was certainly the primary antagonist in the broader Sino-Soviet split, and led the charge in rhetorical lashings.

The passage says that who started the earliest conflicts is unclear it never says Red Guard's started it so this is just a misrepresentation of the source and doesn't substantiate Fellow Traveler's claim. Fellow Traveler also makes claims about Mao and his foreign "policy", which I address here.

So this introduction misrepresents and outright lies on several subjects and perhaps its just me but it feels as if this introduction wasn't made to discuss the historical context of Social Imperialism hell it doesn't even talk about the definition it gives you a bias with an overlord of information which antagonizes the Chinese so you'll be more likely to support the information presented later on, this "introduction" is concerned with attacking Chairman Mao and Maoists, not defending the Soviet Union or even the premise of the video.

The Actual Part of The Video Which Talks About Soviet-Social Imperialism

On Fellow Traveler's Liberalism & Main Source

Throughout the video Fellow Traveler makes his liberalism apparent by indulging in personal attacks and insults rather than making arguments, here's some examples:

Of course only the most devout of Dengists and Kool-Aid drinking gonzaloite baby boilers think that this is a good thing that is the Chinese aligning themselves with the great Satan directly against the USSR.

Time Stamp: 6:26

As we can see, Fellow Traveler engages in a practice of liberalism:

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

Also Mao did not "Ally" with the United States, this is baseless slander, read my refutation here.

In recent decades self-described Maoists and Hoxaists have taken the term and co-opted it as to characterize the Soviet Union's foreign policy under Khrushchev and Brezhnev as a kind of imperialism in its own right adding the social qualifier to the term as to make their Theory sound more credible.

Time Stamp: 10:23

This is again, baseless slander. The Social part was added in because the Anti-Reivisonists wanted to emphasize that the Soviet Union was masquerading as Socialist, although Imperialist could also be correct. Furthermore Fellow Traveler cites Albert Symanski who was an American Khrushchevite who wrote books and artcles etc on defending the Soviet Social-Imperialist state, although his arguments seem well thought out and convincing at first, in reality his arguments falter quickly he also refuted during a debate with Raymond Lotta, Fellow Traveler cites this person frequently almost all of his claims rely on Symanski. So with that knowledge we can see that Fellow Traveler frequently engages in Liberalism and cites a source which has already been refuted.

On The Restoration of Capitalism In The Soviet Union

There was no Finance capital in the USSR there were no stock markets nor was there a class of ultra wealthy transnational bourgeoisie all of which are pretty important characteristics of an imperialist power.

Timestamp: 11:35

No, There Was Party-state fusion. The capitalist-roaders in the Party abused their positions and bureaucratic power to secure wealth for themselves. This most sharply shows itself during Brezhnev's era, which most average Russians can agree was the era in which the foundations were laid for the modern Russian oligarchy to form, and about this point that there was no stock markets in the USSR is just kind of null domination of the capitalist economy was done by trade-unions which basically functioned quite the same as corporations:

Since the Soviet management personnel now form a new capitalist class and are members of the same "trade unions" as the workers they employ (and may dismiss), these Soviet "trade unions" are, in fact, "corporations" similar in every respect to the Nazi Labour Front -- except that they are led by a political party which calls itself the Communist party instead of the National Socialist Labour Party. Like the Labour Front, too, the Soviet "trade unions" do not participate in collective bargaining on such important questions as wage levels, since -- as has been demonstrated in Section 12: "The Price of Labour Power" -- these are determined by the state.

On Soviet Trade Relations With Eastern Europe

Between 1970 and 1972 roughly a third of all imports from the Comic-Con country's wins to the USSR at the same time imports from the USSR to the Comic-Con countries totaled about 35.5 percent contrast this with Africa the Middle East Latin America and the Asian countries which imported about 75 to 80 percent of their goods from the advanced capitalist countries.

Timestamp: 13:55
...

But what of surplus extraction what a value transfer was there an unequal exchange transpiring between the USSR and the Comic-Con countries between the years 1970 and 1972 trade balance between the USSR and Comic-Con was slightly tipped to the favor of the latter that is slightly more value was going to the Comic-Con countries of the Warsaw pacts than was being transferred to the Soviet Union throughout the 1960s trade between the two blocks of countries were almost completely balanced no value was being transferred from one to another the Comic-Con country's exports were primarily machinery and Industrial Equipment in exchange for raw materials and energy imports from the USSR this relationship can be seen on the following chart between the third world and the first world capitalist countries however this trade relationship is reversed that is the advanced capitalist countries exported Capital that is investment in the form of Machinery infrastructure and Factory equipment to the third world while the third world exported cheap fuel food and raw materials to the first world for cheap prices.

Timestamp: 14:31

This is classic statistic manipulation, the Soviet Union exported capital to the Comecon countries, they exported capital through the methods of, loans, investments etc, they also gained large ammounts of profits through exploitation:

From 1955 to 1973, the Soviet Union exported to Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland finished industrial products valued at more than 35,000 million U.S. dollars (among which the value of machines and equipment exceeded 15,000 million dollars) and made nearly 8,400 million dollars in huge profits.

...

In foreign trade, the Soviet Union exploits these countries ruthlessly. Manipulating prices, controlling exports and imports and selling dear and buying cheap through so-called ”long-term trade agreements” are among the methods used for the purpose. It is estimated that the losses suffered by the above-mentioned five countries as a result of unequal trade terms from 1955 to 1973 amounted to 19,000 million dollars. Among them the G.D.R., No. 1 Soviet trade partner, suffered the heaviest exploitations, with the loss reaching 6,400 million dollars.

And about that whole thing about selling cheap raw materials and the like to their allies, guess what? The Soviet Union wasn't doing it out of a sense of comradery or anything, they forced the Comecon countries to become dependent on raw resources so that they'll be able to blackmail them for political purposes:

East European C.M'E.A. members now import from the Soviet Union almost all their oil and iron, 80-90 per cent of their iron-ore and timber, l,hlt'c-quarters of their oil products, rolled metal and phosphate fertilizer and over three-fifths of their cotton, coal and manganese ore. As a result, they have been reduced to depending on the Soviet Union for raw materials, fuel and energy.

...

In the last decade or so, the Soviet revisionists have used these tactics to blackmail the East European countries into providing them with loans, equipment and Labour to help the Soviet Union tap its own resources and build factories. According to press reports, in the 1960- 70 period, Czechoslovakia alone provided the Soviet Union with loans and capital investment totalling about 2,000 million rubles to exploit iron-ore, oil, non-ferrous metals and natural gas and to lay natural gas pipelines.

On Soviet "Aid" To Cuba

When the Soviets stepped in as Cuba's new principal customer for its sugar they had done so while consistently purchasing Cuban sugar well above market prices paying 260 percent World prices.

Timestamp: 20:35

While it is true that the Soviets did buy sugar above the world market, this is not the full picture. The Soviets like any imperialist, gave aid without interest but then they slowly starting changing the interest percentage, to 2.5% but their rate of profit was much higher than this since due to the original agreement, 80% of the USSR's credit and money had to be used for purchasing Soviet products at highly inflated prices furthermore after dependency had been established the Soviets then added on to the agreement requiring all credit to be used on Soviet products, the USSR was charging 717% to 537% more for machinery than the price of comparable machines in the West. And guess what? That whole thing about "Buying Sugar Above The World Market" was just a hook and they later stopped doing it.

The Soviet Union quote in addition the Soviets provided the Cubans with cheap Imports of petroleum minerals fertilizers steel Machinery trucks tractors and other agricultural equipment and on top of that we're also sending thousands of Soviet engineers and Specialists to the country to help develop their industry and on top of that we're also in the process of training thousands of Cuban specialists in the construction and management of their own factories unquote in total the USSR spents about one and a half billion dollars subsidizing Cuba as to help it modernize and build up its Army.

Time Stamp: 21:48

This is again not true, most of that money went to supply the sugar-economy not to industrialize the nation:

The capital accumulated from the sale of sugar to the Soviet bloc, originally earmarked for industrial development, had to go primarily to building the sugar industry. In 1962 all of agriculture, industry, construction and transportation absorbed about 55% of Cuban investment; between 1966 and 1970, 70% went to the sugar industry alone!

On Mao And "His Foreign Policy"

Three worlds Theory became Mao seitung's new ideological justification for why he would willingly side with the United States against the Soviet Union and then going on to have diplomatic meetings with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the early 70s and by extension setting the Precedence for both China's foreign policy and socioeconomic developmental path in the decades to come.

Timestamp: 3:38

First of all Mao meeting with Nixon is a nothing-burger, it was organized by Zhou Enlai and Mao had minimal influence in foreign policy during the Cultural Revolution, this sentiment of "Allying with imperialist powers to unite against a common enemy" was promoted by Zhou Enlai a revisionist. Furthermore its obvious that Mao didn't want to be there:

(There were then some closing pleasantries. The Chairman said he was not well. President Nixon responded that he looked good. The Chairman said that appearance were deceiving. After handshakes and more pictures, Prime Minister Chou then escorted the President out of the residence.)

It’s pretty insane Khrushchevites try to act like this conversation was Mao being an opportunist, and besides what did this meeting end up doing? In material terms? Did the Chinese government formalize an alliance with the United States? The most it did as far as I know all it did was progress the PRC into taking Taiwan’s seat at the UN.

On "Mao's" Three World's Theory

Mao did not believe in Three Worlds Theory, there was no Three Worlds Theory before Deng, Mao said this:

"In my view, the United States and the Soviet Union form the first world. Japan, Europe and Canada, the middle section, belong to the second world. We are the third world.” “The third world has a huge population. With the exception of Japan, Asia belongs to the third world. The whole of Africa belongs to the third world, and Latin America too.”

However there being “a third world” was already a common saying by Mao’s time and Mao never made any theoretical statements on it, only Deng did:

As I have said already, the "argument from authority" of those who claim that this theory derives from Mao Tse-tung cannot confer scientific value upon a theory which buries the class contradictions involved, to say nothing of the contradictions between countries. Besides which, even this claim does not seem to be well founded, since there is no published work of Mao's dealing with the matter. The first official proclamation of this "theory" occurred in Teng Hsiao-ping's speech at the United Nations.

So what Mao said held no theoretical basis and there being a "Three Worlds" was a common saying and what Mao said was taken out of context by Deng in order to justify his revisionism. So no,the meeting with Nixon did not change much and the sentiment or three worlds theory that Fellow Traveler claims came from it were either pre-existing from revisionists or did not come from the meeting but from Deng years after who took what Mao said out of context to justify his revisionist theory.

Conclusion

So was the Soviet Union Socialist under Khrushchev and Brezhnev? Absolutely not. As I have demonstrated, Fellow Traveler's arguments are rooted in liberalism and his main source is a Khrushchevite who already got refuted previously. And was the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and Brezhnev Social-Imperialist? Absolutely. Time and time again Capitalist Roaders have distorted once socialist countries into bourgeois ones, like what happened in the Soviet Union, and again and again fellow revisionists have supported these capitalists, revisionism has set back Socialism by quite a lot, but only with denouncing revisionists and uniting shall we be able to overthrow this system of oppression once and for all.