Workers World, Vol. 21, No. 5
January 31 – There are times when every class conscious worker, every genuine socialist, must take stock of the international situation and the great peril of impending imperialist war. An important change in the character of the international situation has taken place as a result of the so-called normalization of relations between China and the U.S. This is not the type of normalization which progressives and communists throughout the world for years and years have looked forward to being established between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
What has taken place as a result of the recent negotiations between Peking and Washington, and is confirmed by the visit of Teng Hsiao-ping, is a virtual war alliance between the U.S. and China. It is almost avowedly directed squarely against the USSR, its socialist allies, and the progressive and revolutionary liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples.
This marks a very sharp turn in the world situation.
Carter and Brzezinski as well as the so-called moderate Vance grouping have long hoped for a way to consolidate the imperialist powers in a relationship with China which would in effect hold out the possibility of completely encircling the USSR. Earlier last year the U.S. gave its blessings to what it long ago planned as a preliminary step toward getting China into its imperialist orbit. That was the signing of the Japan-China treaty which contains the infamous anti-hegemony clause, a codeword signifying an anti-Soviet axis.
It need hardly be added that the NATO imperialists in Europe are delighted at the prospect of finally having enticed the PRC into the imperialist trap.
A great deal of attention has been given to the most recent vitriolic attacks on the USSR made by Teng, who, as all the world knows by this time, has emerged as the de facto leader in the triumphant new reactionary grouping that has taken over in China.
The incredible lengths to which Teng went in castigating the USSR and putting it in the role of the “hotbed of war” are merely one indication of what American finance capital is exacting from the Peking leadership as its price for diplomatic recognition.
Before Teng arrived in the U.S. he gave an exclusive interview to Time magazine (Feb. 9) which in every way resembles a state-approved policy statement of the PRC. In it Teng carried his anti-Soviet line to the most extreme and ridiculous lengths.
“If we really want to be able to place curbs on the polar bear, the only realistic thing for us is to unite,” he said. And again, “The true hotbed of war is the Soviet Union, not the U.S.”
It was only natural after saying this that Teng should also exhibit great admiration for the 178 retired U.S. generals and admirals who signed a notorious open letter to Carter, printed in the New York Times as an advertisement on Jan. 21, which virtually called for open preparation for war with the USSR. “I very much approve of that letter,” Teng said.
It is hardly possible to go much further than the unbridled, ultra-rightist camarilla of “retired” militarists represented by Zumwalt, Keegan, Singlaub, and their ilk! The viciousness of the Teng attacks made Carter look like a veritable peacemaker beside him. Such is the irony of history.
The Chinese leadership, along with the progressive working class, the socialist countries, and especially the oppressed peoples under the gun of Pentagon imperialism, at one time cast the U.S. imperialist colossus in the role of the “greatest enemy of mankind.” Now the Teng-Hua grouping have transformed U.S. imperialism into a haven of peace, which only needs “will and determination and arms preparations” in order to ward off the aggressions of the “polar bear,” to use the red-baiting term of Teng.
However, it would be a great mistake to view the alliance between China and the U.S. as a fully accomplished fact. It would be foolhardy to assess the international situation solely on the basis of the rash and utterly unbelievable pronouncements which emanate from Peking these days against the Soviet Union.
Unquestionably the alliance is a fact, that is, as alliances go. But they are made and broken as circumstances change. The efficacy of any alliance depends in the final analysis on whether there is at least a substantial identity of interests between the parties to the alliance. Viewed in this light, how can the interest of China, as a socialist state, be served by getting into a war with the USSR from which only the imperialists can gain?
The fact of the matter is that so far as state-to-state relations go, there is only the border issue between China and the USSR and it has only tertiary significance for both countries. It is almost ten years since the last military skirmishes took place along the Ussuri river. While the negotiations may have been protracted and well-night dead for a number of years, nonetheless the military lines have been altogether quiet and without any incident whatsoever.
The overthrow of the Pol Pot regime by the Kampuchean National United Front for National Salvation has all but settled the earlier struggle between Viet Nam and Kampuchea. But Teng’s deliberate threat to Viet Nam made yesterday in, of all places, his talk to U.S. Congressional leaders, in which he raised the possibility of “retaliating” against Viet Nam, could of course only serve to aggravate the situation now.
It is not unthinkable, considering the reactionary character of the new grouping in the PRC, that Teng may have felt out the Carter administration or even solicited aid in the event the PRC leaders launch an attack on Viet Nam.
The Carter administration may have proposed as a quid pro quo that China in turn give over political if not material support in the event the U.S. openly intervenes in the Iranian Revolution. The pretext for all this would of course be the phony threat of Soviet aggression.
However, the struggle between the USSR and China has not been a struggle for markets, sources of raw materials, or any other of the basic economic objectives for which the imperialists have unleased two world wars. Viewed in historical perspective, the issues which elsewhere have led to unrestrained warfare are totally absent in the state-to-state struggle between China and the USSR.
The issues are in reality very narrow and easily lend themselves to settlement by means other than force. The driving forces which have led to imperialist wars such as those unleashed by the American, Japanese, and European imperialists are not at all present or inherent in the social system of the USSR and China.
What gave such tremendous impetus to the state-to-state struggle was its ideological origins. The ideological underpinnings of that struggle, however, no longer have any meaning so far as the current leaders of China are concerned, since they have renounced the struggle against imperialism, abandoned the Cultural Revolution, and are even dismantling some of the significant gains of the Chinese Revolution as a whole.
Whereas the mainstay of the ideological struggle conducted by the PRC leaders had been over strategy and tactics on how to vanquish imperialism and how to conduct the class struggle of the workers and the oppressed throughout the world, the abandonment of this struggle has made the dispute altogether irrelevant as an issue between the USSR and China.
As a matter of fact, a lead article in the editorial section of the Washington Post, which appeared on the eve of Teng’s arrival in the U.S. (Jan. 28), holds that “the ideological debate which gave rise to the Sino-Soviet schism has long ago lost its relevance.”
“The schism began 20 years ago,” the article continues, “when Mao accused Khrushchev of betraying the interest of the world revolution by seeking détente with the U.S. Later Mao said that the modernization of the Soviet economy had brought capitalism back to Russia. On both these counts, and on many others, Teng has left orthodox communism much further behind than Khrushchev ever did. And the deaths of Khrushchev and Mao have removed the personal element which came to play so large a role in the Sino-Soviet dispute. The original causes of the schism have disappeared, and there is no good reason why it should continue.
“Sooner of later, the trend toward a reconciliation between Russia and China which is already evident will assert itself with full force, and the U.S. attempt to keep their dispute going by artificial means will suffer a major diplomatic defeat.”
Of course, this is only one view inside the imperialist establishment. It is written by Victor Zorza, whose columns also appear in Le Monde and other European newspapers.
In this long article by Zorza, which is prominently displayed in the Washington Post on the eve of Teng’s arrival, he traces the political struggle between the right-wing faction headed by Teng and the Hua centrist grouping. Whatever the merits of that may be, the significance of his viewpoint lies in the fact that he sees the demise of the ideological struggle as a basis for a reconciliation of the USSR and China.
In truth, there is no longer an area for sharp disagreement so far as ideology goes, since the Chinese leadership is not promoting revolutionary class struggle concepts in any deliberate attempt to overthrow imperialism.
The USSR’s efforts on the international arena of giving aid and assistance to the liberation struggle are mainly a means of self-defense and an effort to weaken U.S. aggression. What the Zorza article reveals, without saying so, is that there is a material basis, if not for immediate reconciliation, at least for a socialist détente between the two countries.
The fundamental reason for this lies in the fact that they both have substantially similar social systems based on similar class structures. Both need peace for socialist construction and fraternal relations between them will accelerate the pace of socialist construction.
Interesting in the highest degree is what Zorza reveals is the real problem confronting U.S. strategists vis-à-vis China and the USSR. “The specter which haunts Western strategists – the possible transfer of half a million Soviet troops from the border with China to Europe after a reconciliation comes about – provides a powerful motive for U.S. diplomacy. To an important extent, the U.S. is helping Teng, politically and economically – and West European countries are supplying him with modern arms and massive credits – in order to prevent such a reconciliation [between the USSR and China] [our emphasis]. ...
“Western attempts to prevent a reconciliation by seeking to reinvigorate the flagging anti-Soviet sentiments of the Chinese leaders are bound to fail because such attempts are no longer based on political realities” (by which he means the ideological debate).
It is to be remembered, however, that the PRC has in effect agreed to allow Taiwan to remain as a virtual U.S. colony.
The intransigence of the U.S. and particularly of the Republican and Democratic right-wing is not only due to the fact that Taiwan is a tremendous source of super-profits, but also to their intention to keep it as leverage against China in the event of a rapprochement with the USSR. One of the basic incentives for China to consummate an alliance with the U.S. would have been “given away” if the U.S. were to completely relent on Taiwan.
Another significant drawback to reconciliation, at least from an immediate point of view, is the reign of political reaction inaugurated by the triumph of the Teng-Hua faction. It has introduced wholesale reactionary reforms which have gravely weakened the economy of China and made it vulnerable to imperialist penetration by American, Japanese, and European finance capital at a time when Teng and his grouping are moving at breakneck speed to enlist the aid of imperialism to bolster China’s economy.
One has to understand that it is basically the economic situation in China and the planned so-called modernization which has motivated the Teng grouping to seek the embrace of the imperialist monopolies in the U.S. in particular. The contradiction in the Teng strategy lies in the fact that there is no quick technological “fix” for the social disorder and instability in China’s economy which have their origins in the elevation of a right-wing grouping to the leadership of the PRC.
Whatever socialist solution to the Chinese economy may be available, it cannot be filled by an imperialist prescription made out by the leading corporations of U.S. monopoly capitalism. The way out of the blind alley lies in renewing friendly ties with the USSR and rejoining the socialist camp, the camp of the working class and the oppressed and all the socialist countries.
Last updated: 11 May 2026