I’m afraid
konradv does often show his knowledge about today’s China is rather shallow. China can be a remarkably complex place and the Communist Party often
does defend Confucian (mostly conservative) traditions, and China’s “ancient culture.” (Stalin’s Russia, after all, during WWII often lauded old Czars and aristocratic military heroes … just a few years after denouncing them as reactionary.)
But where
konradv is sometimes just mistaken,
Kruska has no excuse for his … misrepresentations. I wonder who he thinks he is fooling here?
Kruska offers a bizarre “history” of the origin and development of the Chinese Communist movement that is ridiculous. it is a pack of propagandistic lies only an old hack / CPC cadre would concoct or repeat, or believe. He seems to be trying to sanitize all the twists and turn of that party’s leadership over a century just so Mao looks good and the present XiJinPing leadership looks better. He may well have gotten it out of some ridiculous CPC cadre’s official manual and added a few preposterous tidbits of his own.
It’s fine to emphasize the strong influence of early USSR cadre on the new & immature but rapidly growing Communist Party in China in the 1920s. Mao’s later rise pushed a very different line for rural peasant warfare than these experienced but mostly European revolutionaries. The early advice sent from Stalin’s Comintern swung ideologically in very different directions, from urging a “popular front” during the Northern March led by the Guomindang — leading to the massacre of CP members and supporters by Chiang Kai-shek / Jiang Jieshi in 1927 in Shanghai — to flip-flopping & calling for ultra-left CP-initiated “Soviet” uprisings in cities, where they were doomed to fail and led only to further massacres.
To somehow connect this early Soviet “hard core” influence in the urban worker-based 1920’s Communist movement to disasters over a generation later like Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” … is absurd. It is to misunderstand everything — including the evolving nature of the early Communist Party, its urban/rural division, WWII war experiences, Mao’s own evolving “Cult of Personality” (as his faction came to dominate the Red Army), and the overall transformation of the party from leading a peasant-based army trying to survive Guomindang attacks in war-lord ravished and then Japanese-occupied China, to a group marching into cities, defeating the weakened Guomindang and establishing a new national government.
To identify early “hard-core” Comintern ideology (however you want to define it) with Mao’s distinct and evolving personal view would be mostly wrong, but even more wrong would be to link that element with Mao’s later increasingly anti-materialist ideology, with his “Gang of Four” or its final leader — who happened to be Mao’s last wife Jiang Qing. The members of the Gang of Four and the student leaders of the Cultural Revolution were not carrying out the mission of early Comintern agents who had disappeared more than 30 years earlier. They were not just then supporting Mao’s cult and opposing “Soviet social imperialism” — they had no idea whatever what the latter term even meant! They were simply carrying out a chaotic rebellion against authority, Chinese culture and decency itself at the behest of Mao and his narrow faction, which had been losing power to party bureaucrats, experts and city people since the Great Leap Forward.
Kruska identifying a hardcore “ultra left” with both Stalin’s Comintern and Mao’s Cultural Revolution by itself would be a silly oversimplification, but then to link them with American “woke” democrats or liberals shows above all he shares a fabulist and crackpot view of history.
What is hiding behind his misrepresentations of the history of today’s suddenly “not communist” Communist Party of China … is simply worship of raw political power … of two present day one-man dictators in Russia & China.