Military Review

"The collapse of the USSR became a lesson": China explained the power of the party over the military

78

In 1927, the chairman of the party, Mao Zedong, declared that "political power grows from the barrel of a pistol." At that time, the communist organization mainly existed in the form of an armed uprising against the ruling Kuomintang. It was the army that brought the CCP to power by winning the Civil War in 1949. In the early years of their rule, all party leaders had military experience. But in the end, it was necessary to establish strict control over the army, preventing the collapse of the country following the example of the USSR.


Power over the military


The collapse of the USSR in 1991 was a lesson that convinced the party that it should retain power over the military without allowing its rule to be challenged.

- explains the power of the party over the military columnist Josephine Ma in the pages of the SCMP edition.

The Soviet Communist Party lost power over the military, so its regime was dismantled

- stated in 2015 in an article published in the official army newspaper PLA Daily.

The government's lack of real authority over the PLA was amply demonstrated in 2008, when a magnitude 8 earthquake in Sichuan killed 87 people, injured 000 and left 370 million homeless. Then the PLA refused to comply with the order of the Cabinet and did not mobilize the military on the first day of the disaster to provide assistance.



Rooting out corruption


After Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, he launched a large-scale anti-corruption campaign in the army and defeated many influence groups in its ranks.

For decades, the military has been known to be mired in corruption, which flourished in the 1980s when it was allowed to do business to support its budget. The practice was banned in 1998, but corruption was still rampant in the army.

- writes the columnist.

In 2015, Xi Jinping stopped commercial activities of the PLA and ordered a focus on transforming it into a modern army. However, he had to overcome the desperate resistance of a group of influence that received the designation "Principality of Bo", led by Bo Xilai, the son of prominent party leader Bo Yibo, then chief of state security Zhou Yongkang, as well as generals Guo and Xu.

Xi Jinping successfully rooted out the strongholds of corrupt groups by reorganizing headquarters, military formations and military districts. He received the title of Commander-in-Chief in 2016, formally placing the army under his control. In 2017, changes were made to the party's charter, according to which the armed forces must be absolutely loyal to the chairman of the Central Military Commission [CVK, party organ], which is currently Xi. In January 2021, the State Council [Cabinet of Ministers] was removed from the development of military policy, transferring all decision-making powers to the Central Exhibition Complex.

All this expanded the powers of the Central Exhibition Complex, led by Xi Jinping, to mobilize military and civilian resources to protect national interests both domestically and abroad.

- writes the columnist.


78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. SERGE ANT
    SERGE ANT 17 May 2021 15: 21
    +12
    The Chinese learned well the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union and their Tiananmen, so they became a powerful state in the economic and military terms.
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha 17 May 2021 15: 30
      +13
      Quote: SERGE ANT
      The Chinese learned well the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union and their Tiananmen, so they became a powerful state in the economic and military terms.

      I disagree. More precisely, not quite. They became a powerful state, primarily thanks to innumerable foreign injections into the economy since the late 70s, but unlike Japan, they were able to reformat them so that now foreigners depend on them no less than they themselves on their markets. All the events of recent years show the struggle to change this situation.
      But without foreign investment and technology, the Chinese would, by and large, “grow rice and beat sparrows,” figuratively speaking.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 17 May 2021 15: 42
        +6
        Quote: Mitroha
        They have become a powerful state, primarily thanks to innumerable foreign injections into the economy ... But without foreign investment and technology, the Chinese, by and large, would “grow rice and beat sparrows,” figuratively speaking.
        There are many countries where tens and hundreds of millions of poor people (cheap labor) live, but multibillion-dollar foreign investments "flowed like a river" into China. Why?
        This is the merit of the Chinese leadership.
        In our country, "rivers of investment" did not flow, do not flow and will probably never flow ...
        1. Mitroha
          Mitroha 17 May 2021 15: 45
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          but multibillion-dollar foreign investment "flowed like a river" to China. Why?
          This is the merit of the Chinese leadership.
          In our country, "rivers of investment" did not flow, do not flow and will probably never flow ...
          Reply

          No, only in opposition to the USSR, and the merit of the Chinese leadership here, only in the timely condemnation of the Soviet communist system.
          1. Aag
            Aag 17 May 2021 16: 01
            0
            Quote: Mitroha
            Quote: Doccor18
            but multibillion-dollar foreign investment "flowed like a river" to China. Why?
            This is the merit of the Chinese leadership.
            In our country, "rivers of investment" did not flow, do not flow and will probably never flow ...
            Reply

            No, only in opposition to the USSR, and the merit of the Chinese leadership here, only in the timely condemnation of the Soviet communist system.

            Where? When? I guess I missed something ... Examples are possible?
            1. Mitroha
              Mitroha 17 May 2021 16: 15
              0
              After the 20th Congress of the CPSU and beyond
              1. Aag
                Aag 17 May 2021 21: 49
                0
                Quote: Mitroha
                After the 20th Congress of the CPSU and beyond

                Did the 20th Congress of the CPSU determine China's economic policy?
                Partly, indirectly, maybe ...
                Sorry, I'm clinging to words ...
                How do you explain investments in China (apart from cheap labor?)
                1. Mitroha
                  Mitroha 17 May 2021 22: 31
                  +1
                  Well, I answered you in the previous comment. Counterweight to the USSR
                  1. Aag
                    Aag 17 May 2021 22: 41
                    0
                    Quote: Mitroha
                    Well, I answered you in the previous comment. Counterweight to the USSR

                    Sorry, maybe I don't understand why ..
                    20th Congress, is this the 56th year? What then did China mean on the world stage? (Centuries-old history, so far, do not touch ...)
                    1. Mitroha
                      Mitroha 17 May 2021 22: 42
                      0
                      Learn the story
                      1. Aag
                        Aag 17 May 2021 23: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Mitroha
                        Learn the story

                        How would you advise whether to start with Ancient Greece, or with amoebas?
                        I do not share all opinions, - far away ...
                        But I am ready to listen to everyone. If possible, challenge, or defend the thesis, my point of view ...
                        "Learn history", sorry, sounds like ... "go ... into the distance!"
                        What did they want to say, what idea to convey?
                        No, I don’t argue, my level in some basic disciplines leaves much to be desired ... And I need to teach history ...
                        But, I do not consider this a reason to conduct a dialogue in the manner you have set. Essentially, - is there anything to say?
                        Not even an interested opponent?
                  2. Aag
                    Aag 17 May 2021 22: 54
                    0
                    [quote = Mitr hi oha] Well, I answered you in the previous comment. Counterweight of the USSR [/ quote]
                    And most importantly, I missed it, why is there a counterbalance to the USSR on the part of China? In those years ?!
                    Yes, then our border guards would wrap up "deserters" to catch from the Chinese side, so that they could warm them up, feed them, escort them back ...
                    Do you have other arguments? I only have stories of friends, relatives ... (IMHO: - more important than the stories of modern media ... At least - for me) ...
          2. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 18 May 2021 00: 09
            0
            The leadership of the PRC has never condemned the Soviet system.
            1. Victor Tsenin
              Victor Tsenin 21 May 2021 15: 55
              0
              How to say, the great Mao directly condemned the policy of Khrushchev, the system and the policy of the USSR in particular. It was in 1963, I read it in a thin red book. Moreover, Mao expressed the opinion that with such a leadership of the USSR there were 30 years left, 1963 + 30 =
              Regarding the Chinese economy, here the lion's share of the merit of Deng Xiaoping, who attracted investments and production, as well as the party and people who made the right choice in 1989. It is clear that, as mentioned above, the investments were made to counterbalance the Union, but Deng specified their conditions and the transfer of production , you can just squander everything, or you can make a giant leap.
        2. dauria
          dauria 17 May 2021 16: 11
          +3
          multibillion-dollar foreign investments "flowed like a river" into China. Why?
          This is the merit of the Chinese leadership.


          Yeah .. laughing This is the ancient policy of the Anglo-Saxons - "equality on the mainland." France is strong - they are helping Germany. Germany is strong - we help the French. Then there will be no situation when the strong will rake the weak into vassals and together break into the British.
          Actually, the puncture happened in 1939, when France, instead of a bloody massacre with Hitler, raised its paws. Then the British had a shock - where to get another fighter?
          So it is with China. He was raised against the USSR. Have grown.
          Yes, only too large a beast. Now they think, "no matter how he crushed Russia and broke into us himself"
      2. Overlock
        Overlock 17 May 2021 16: 28
        +3
        Quote: Mitroha
        They have become a powerful state, primarily thanks to the innumerable foreign investments in the economy since the late 70s.

        Investments are different investments. The population of China has traditionally had a high level of savings (in 1979, their volume was 32% of GDP). To date China ranks first in the world in terms of savings to GDP, which made it possible to significantly increase domestic investment.
        International investments. During 1985-2013 yyy... direct investment inflow to China increased from 2 to 127 billion dollars USA per year. At the end of 2010, 445 foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs) were registered in China, employing over 55 million people (15,9% of the city's workforce). The share of industrial production attributable to the FIEs rose from 2,3% in 1990 to a peak high of 35,9% in 2003. In 2011, FIEs provided more than a quarter of China's industrial production. In 2013, FIEs accounted for 47,3% of foreign trade and 44,8% of imports. It is especially worth noting that Chinese FIEs are leading in the export of high-tech products: in 2010, their share in this export category was 82%, and enterprises with 100% foreign capital provided 55% of the volume.
        Russia. For march 2010 years, the total amount of accumulated foreign investment in the Russian economy was $ 265,8 billion.
        In June 2010, the report of the British audit company Ernst & Young noted that in 2009 Russia entered the top 5 countries in terms of the number of attracted new investment projects.
        As you can see, foreign investments in China and Russia in 2010 were comparable.
        But why "not feed the horse" is a different story.
        1. Mitroha
          Mitroha 17 May 2021 16: 35
          0
          Quote: Overlock
          As you can see, foreign investments in China and Russia in 2010 were comparable.
          But why "not feed the horse" is a different story.

          Well, yes, in some they invested 30 years and the cost of a worker was "a cup of rice", and in the Russian Federation they put in 10 years, 20 of them were pumped out and the total investment volumes are not comparable by orders of magnitude. Plus, for a cup of rice, our citizens have not worked since birth ...
          1. Overlock
            Overlock 17 May 2021 16: 50
            +3
            Quote: Mitroha
            Well, yes, in some they invested 30 years and the cost of the worker was "a cup of rice", and in the Russian Federation they put in 10 years, 20 of them were pumped out and the total investment volumes are not comparable by orders of magnitude.

            You are not right. Before the start of active reforms, the Chinese economy was ineffective and did not differ much from the Soviet-style economy. The basis of development was agriculture, which employed about 80% of the economically active population. Planning, rigid centralization and isolation from the rest of the world in the late 70s led the Chinese economy to stagnation. As with us.
            And here is why then our paths diverged?
            1. Mitroha
              Mitroha 17 May 2021 20: 17
              -4
              You are wrong, we will see in the next 30 years how the economies with a predominance of agriculture will sharply trample upwards. The main thing is that they have the strength to defend their countries from the unexpected embarrassment of the rich countries so far.
            2. Mitroha
              Mitroha 17 May 2021 20: 18
              -1
              Quote: Overlock
              Planning, rigid centralization and isolation from the rest of the world in the late 70s led the Chinese economy to stagnation. As with us.
              But why then our paths diverged?

              See my comment above
    2. credo
      credo 17 May 2021 15: 33
      +7
      Quote: SERGE ANT
      The Chinese learned well the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union and their Tiananmen, so they became a powerful state in the economic and military terms.

      History shows that such a short period of "prosperity" cannot be used to judge the country's future. China, like the USSR, has serious ill-wishers. Wait and see.

      On the topic of the military and their role in 1991 in the USSR, the essence has not been disclosed. If the Chinese wanted to justify their purges in the PLA with a story about the USSR, it would be better if they took Turkey as an example.
    3. nnm
      nnm 17 May 2021 15: 52
      +10
      in China explained the power of the party over the military

      I'm not entirely sure if this analogy is correct. Weren't the army and navy in the USSR under the leadership of the Central Committee of the CPSU? There were. Moreover, the floor is under total control. As well as all power structures. But the party itself was taken out of the control of the KGB even in the days of Khrushchev.
      It was precisely the political power that showed not only cowardice, but betrayed both the country and the army as well.
      Did someone try to raise an army during the collapse to protect against internal traitors? Not.
      Yes, the army has always been and will be a continuation of politics, but this will always be its strength and its weakness - dependence on whoever is at the top of the political pyramid of power. Stalin, Si or Gorbachev and Yeltsin. And that's all, the army, faithful to the principle of one-man command, either helps to lead the country forward, or, at least, passively watches its disintegration from the outside.
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 17 May 2021 16: 34
        +1
        Quote: nnm
        But the party itself was taken out of the control of the KGB even in the days of Khrushchev.
        It was precisely the political power that showed not only cowardice, but betrayed both the country and the army as well.

        When were the Cheka and the GPU / NKVD under the control of the party? Did the Party strongly correct the "work" of these organizations?
        How did the KGB fight against the collapse of the country? ”“ It is enough to see that from that composition he became oligarchs and very rich individuals.
        Who controls the FSB now? How does the GDP and the well-being of citizens grow because of this?
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 17 May 2021 17: 08
        -1
        Quote: nnm
        But the party itself was taken out of the control of the KGB even in the days of Khrushchev.
        It was precisely the political power that showed not only cowardice, but betrayed both the country and the army in

        Nice man! In the army, the main thing was not the political department, but a special department. And the PPR brought the process of combat training to the rewriting of the materials of the congresses and topics for political studies from the FAC. The unit might not have a sports corner, a special training class, but Lenin's room was always like a combat leaflet, a wall newspaper and other political propaganda. It was necessary to somehow and somehow explain why LIB was awarded the Order of Victory.
        It was at this time that anecdotes about political politicians and their responsibility were published. It was then that there was a tendency to write off, act. Then it became possible to spend money from articles (who served - knows) on completely "non-article" needs. And with the arrival of warrant officers - chiefs of warehouses and services, into the army, the process of squandering funds accelerated.
        Here is an anecdote from those years:
        Three people entered the bathhouse. All are knee-deep. The "zampotyl" has a stomach, the "political officer" has a tongue, a warrant officer has his hands.

        And the OO at that time was engaged in the search for "spies" and unreliable.
        1. nnm
          nnm 17 May 2021 18: 39
          +1
          I didn’t understand at all how this refutes my words about the party's having an instrument of control over the army. Who went through all the awards, titles, positions, etc. That's right - political officers. The fact that the party turned them, for the most part, into parasites does not mean that there was no control tool. Moreover, considering who was the supreme. Any appointment went through the political department. So the control was total. And about the anecdotes, I will cite an even earlier one:
          "What is the difference between a commissioner and a political commissar?
          - the commissar commanded: "do as I do!"
          political officer: "do as I said!"
          So, I will remain unconvinced. It is not the army that has degraded, but the party system.
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 17 May 2021 15: 25
    +11
    All this expanded the powers of the Central Exhibition Complex headed by Xi Jinping.

    In short, everything is closed on one person ... And the fate of the country depends on whether he is Stalin or Gorbachev ...
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 17 May 2021 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      In short, everything is closed on one person ...

      This is a system of power "sharpened" for one person. In Russia - on a human resource that suits the country's leadership.
      In reality, we do not have any "power of the people", and the people themselves can only be a puppet in the hands of the Central Executive Committee; a laughing stock and a "rogue" in the eyes of officials; "Cattle" and "poverty" in the eyes of those close to the trough; a disenfranchised herd that can be chased with clubs anywhere, in the eyes of the police and gendarmes.
      We do not have any mechanism for recalling "people's choices" and the right to be the chosen one is not given to a mere mortal. We are knocking around in search of a good tsar, and then we make ourselves hemorrhoids, then a hernia.
      And the most disgusting and disgusting, to which we were able to live, is to establish power ... well, you understand who: "shirts-guys" and "altruists."
  3. Doccor18
    Doccor18 17 May 2021 15: 33
    +3
    ... that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
    His dictum: "the rifle gives rise to power" is more heard.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 17 May 2021 16: 39
      +5
      Quote: Doccor18
      His dictum: "the rifle gives rise to power" is more heard.

      But this has been forgotten: "Our principle is that the party commands the rifle, it is completely unacceptable for the rifle to command the party."
      And this - "Anyone who seeks to profit from someone else's account, necessarily ends up badly!"
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 17 May 2021 19: 48
        +2
        Zedong and Stalin did not graduate from academies and universities, but they were damn smart and well-read people.
        Each left behind a literary legacy, in which each of us will find something interesting and topical.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 18 May 2021 00: 22
          +1
          Mao is his last name, not Zedong.) After him were Hua, Deng, Jiang, Hu. Now Xi is in power.
  4. sergo1914
    sergo1914 17 May 2021 15: 39
    +4
    Living in China I heard a different version. The CCP, like the CPSU, began to hesitate, but then the military (Tiananmen) came and everything returned to the mainstream. And the old military. Who else is from Mao. The CCP was cheered up and no one hesitated so radically anymore.
  5. Basarev
    Basarev 17 May 2021 15: 40
    +1
    And in my opinion, Xi is simply rowing more and more power for himself. In a normal country, the party should not have power at all, especially over the army - on the contrary, I see the army as another control mechanism in case of disloyalty to the ruler. Then the general will be able to declare the president who sells the popular interests a traitor and personally shoot the bastard with a clear conscience, having previously taken all his palaces by storm and tied up his puppets.
    1. VORON538
      VORON538 17 May 2021 15: 54
      -3
      And in your adored United States, how did the military in Washington act after the presidential elections, according to your concept or not?
    2. unaha
      unaha 17 May 2021 16: 01
      +1
      Yes Yes. "The rebel has fallen, glory to the dragon!" © Soyuzmultfilm
    3. Aag
      Aag 17 May 2021 16: 03
      0
      "... Then the general will be able to declare the president who sells the national interests a traitor and, with a clear conscience, personally shoot the bastard, having previously taken all his palaces by storm and tied up his puppets ..."
      Isn't that what D. Dudayev wanted to do at one time?
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 17 May 2021 17: 54
        -1
        Dudayev, having become a separatist and going to split the country (whose integrity he swore to protect), lost his heavenly mandate, so I personally do not approve of his intentions. And I support the general line of the general-savior. As for the States - there have been no traitors among the presidents for a very long time. The Democratic and Republican parties are both very quilted jackets and strive to make the States happy at any cost. The goal is one, only different approaches. That is, there was no trade in the homeland, so the warriors supported the new president.
  6. Avior
    Avior 17 May 2021 15: 44
    +5
    ... The Soviet Communist Party lost power over the military, so its regime was dismantled

    Do the Chinese think that it happened by military means?
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 17 May 2021 15: 59
      +2
      In a sense, the opposite, yes. It was necessary to better monitor the living conditions in the army, food, hazing relationships and a 7-ruble allowance for conscripts. The Ministry of Defense has become very relaxed in the last ten years of the existence of the USSR.
      1. Avior
        Avior 17 May 2021 17: 17
        -4
        I have served for the last ten years.
        And what is the connection between the living conditions of conscripts and the collapse of the USSR?
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 17 May 2021 17: 23
          +4
          You are asking strange questions, these factors were of enormous importance in relation to the country. We probably had very different conditions of service, and it’s probably difficult for you to imagine the conditions in which I had to serve. The lice alone were worth something. And my classmate after the service wrote poetry about ten Kazakhs and two of them. In addition, they literally pulled me out of my student days, which, for example, did not exist until 1984.
  7. imrek_ua
    imrek_ua 17 May 2021 15: 55
    +6
    Either an incorrect translation, or an incomplete text, or stupidity is written in the original. Where is the causal relationship? The union collapsed precisely because the ruling party degenerated without control, and its leaders, and concurrently the leaders of the state, did what they wanted. The main purpose of the army is to fight an external enemy by force of arms. What does the army have to do with the collapse of the Union?
    And most likely, this Chinese article was written for internal use, and is aimed at a reader who is little aware of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR.
    1. tatra
      tatra 17 May 2021 16: 17
      +1
      Those who seriously argue that countries can fall apart by themselves are potential patients in psychiatric hospitals. And if the "Liberator" of the enemies of the communists, Gorbachev, had not reached power, the USSR would have existed to this day.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 17 May 2021 16: 30
        +4
        Quote: tatra
        And if the "Liberator" of the enemies of the communists, Gorbachev, had not reached power, the USSR would have existed to this day.
        The worst thing in all this is not Gorbachev at all, but those who dragged him to the highest echelons of power, his patrons. After all, it would be a big mistake to think that he is a "lone traitor" ...
        1. tatra
          tatra 17 May 2021 16: 42
          -2
          What, the communists had to be telepathic, and know that in the minds of that huge number of enemies of the communists who, for the sake of profit, for years, decades, pretended to be communists and their supporters, and would pretend to death if Gorbachev had not reached power in the USSR?
        2. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 17 May 2021 17: 35
          +1
          Quote: Doccor18
          The worst thing in all this is not Gorbachev at all, but those who dragged him to the highest echelons of power, his patrons.

          Ah, let's guess from three attempts letters this word ... wassat
          There is a funny show with VVZh and Ivan Urgant (from 11:00), how a young teenager Vova Zhirinovsky loved the daughter of a KGB officer:

          May I ask? Does anyone know who gave the VVZ the go-ahead for the creation of the Liberal Democratic Party in 1989? Is this really the machinations of the Central Committee of the CPSU?
          Another feature. The persons involved in the article of the Criminal Code of the USSR No. 88 were supervised by the KGB. Who is currently in charge of the withdrawal of capital through offshore companies? Who controls the consistency of expenditures and revenues in the upper echelons?
  8. Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 17 May 2021 16: 15
    +2
    The article is interesting. Instructive. But still, there are controversial points. The author claims that the collapse of the USSR occurred due to the loss of the authority of the CPSU in the Armed Forces.
    With the same success it can be argued that the loss of the authority of the CPSU was due to the party itself. A lot of political workers in the Army and Navy. A lot of stupid politicized orders of the party, army and navy. Some police departments were worth what, in every district, division and regiment. And all this mass of political parties, for the most part, did not make decisions and did not bear responsibility, but only hovered over each commander and inspired the "leading role of the party." I do not exclude that there were smart and decent people among the political leaders. From my urgent I remember our nachpo. God forbid the soldier will not be given a complete list of things according to the certificate, or the food in the dining room will be cold. He will follow the general, whining, hysteria, shouting that the rear is undermining the defense capability of the army, will bring all the rear personnel to a heart attack, threatening with prison, but in the end, the food will be hot, the uniform will be issued, in full volume .. But there were such political workers, after all. units.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 17 May 2021 16: 41
      +3
      Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
      the collapse of the USSR was due to the loss of the authority of the CPSU in the Armed Forces.
      With the same success it can be argued that the loss of the authority of the CPSU was due to the party itself.

      Without a doubt!
      1. Andrei Nikolaevich
        Andrei Nikolaevich 17 May 2021 18: 42
        0
        Thank you.) So, we think in the same way.
  9. Doccor18
    Doccor18 17 May 2021 16: 27
    +3
    Quote: Mitroha
    After the 20th Congress of the CPSU and beyond

    The 20th Congress of the CPSU was held in 1956, and visible economic transformations (the beginning of the "Chinese economic miracle") began already under Xiaoping, in 1979 ...
    The Americans, of course, flirted with Mao, trying to drive a thicker wedge between him and Nikita. But investments went only in the 80s, and large investments in the 90s, when the USSR had already left the political arena ...
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 18 May 2021 00: 27
      +1
      Under Deng.) In the Chinese, the surname is spelled first. You are not writing about the politics of Joseph Vissarionovich or Nikita Sergeevich, but about Stalin and Khrushchev.
  10. Doliva63
    Doliva63 17 May 2021 16: 34
    +3
    "The collapse of the USSR in 1991 was a lesson that convinced the party that it should retain power over the military, not allowing its rule to be challenged ..." What nonsense? What did the army have to do with the collapse of the Union?
    1. t-12
      t-12 17 May 2021 16: 52
      +1
      The army could not even arrange the GKChP in a decent way. Yazov, who is bleating without interrogation, is an indicative ending of this stupid undertaking. And all the Komsomol members and speculators took the power from the party.
      1. Doliva63
        Doliva63 17 May 2021 17: 20
        +1
        Quote: t-12
        The army could not even arrange the GKChP in a decent way. Yazov, who is bleating without interrogation, is an indicative ending of this stupid undertaking. And all the Komsomol members and speculators took the power from the party.

        By 91, the army did not depend on the party in any way, on the word at all. The hunchback took the power from the party, changing the Constitution of the Union. And Yazov? He was already at a fair age, had no ambitions and did not want blood. As they say, this is not his fault, but his misfortune. Back in the mid-80s, the humpback "cleaned up" the generals fairly. The last Snetkov was, and he was dismissed in 89, it seems.
        1. t-12
          t-12 17 May 2021 21: 11
          -1
          by changing the Constitution of the Union
          If you are talking about the 6th article, then it was not changed by the "hunchback" (alone), but by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (where the party members sat). Those. the party itself renounced power.
      2. Avior
        Avior 17 May 2021 17: 56
        +2
        GKChP is not an army coup
        1. t-12
          t-12 17 May 2021 21: 13
          -1
          Which one then? Civil? With tanks?
  11. tatra
    tatra 17 May 2021 16: 46
    -1
    The difference between the destruction of the Russian Empire and the USSR is that if in the case of the Republic of Ingushetia the head of the State was betrayed, then in the case of the USSR the leader himself betrayed the State, which was entrusted to it.
  12. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 17 May 2021 16: 50
    0
    That's terrible! I came to the conclusion that I do not understand nicherta in the stormy and intense activity of the PRC.
    It is a pity that there is no International Panorama program with Henrikh Borovik, for example ....
  13. xorek
    xorek 17 May 2021 17: 17
    +4
    The Soviet Communist Party lost power over the military, so its regime was dismantled

    First, over the media of all stripes, and then these media (who sat in them and waited in the wings) just started pouring tubs of dirt first on our history, then on the Army (remember the hazing hysteria, etc., Afghan) And then a matter of technology it was while the people were in a stupor from everything and wiped themselves from the slops poured on them by all sorts of libers and other released from psychiatric hospitals (the humpback closed them ALL)
    And also China very harshly suppressed its liberal protestors with tanks in the late 80s, and the most interesting thing at that time was Gorbach's visit to China ..
    Even Mao, being in the USSR, already under the rule of Khrushchev and the anti-Stalinist reforms, said the way he looked at water ..
    1. Andrei Nikolaevich
      Andrei Nikolaevich 17 May 2021 18: 48
      +3
      Our Communist Party (with the exception of the communists who fought and died on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War) by the age of 88-91 was completely choked with impudence and benefits. As a result, they plundered the state property, and threw away the membership cards, went into business, opening joint ventures with foreigners, enterprises and cooperatives. And they feel great.
      1. xorek
        xorek 17 May 2021 19: 05
        0
        Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
        Our Communist Party (with the exception of the Communists who fought and died on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War) by the age of 88-91 was completely zazhratsya from impudence and benefits.

        Nomenclature yes .. but not all

        Quote: Andrey Nikolaevich
        As a result, they plundered the state property, and threw away the membership cards, went into business, opening joint ventures with foreigners, enterprises and cooperatives. And they feel great.

        There was democratic centralism in the CPSU and the lower classes, in principle, followed the policy of the center .. And in the center, the hidden Vlasovites and bribe-takers finally broke through to power
        Yakovlev, Shevardnadze (corruption and registration in Georgia just went off scale, Uzbeks were just d / s) EBN, a humpback talker .. And then remember Gaidar, the deceased (former editor-in-chief of the Kommunist magazine) Gerashchenko, who gave permission to Khodorkovsky to open his own account in the state bank and then he pumped out literally EVERYTHING from many enterprises that worked by bank transfer (the scheme is well-known) Then the banks have already created -pumps ..And the DECAY began! And the groan stood over Russia and the blood poured ...
        And the holiday began on the bones of a great power, pulling it apart and munching without hesitation and grinning, who has not adapted to the market, do not regret them
        Eh Russia ..!
  14. Doctor
    Doctor 17 May 2021 19: 13
    +3
    I read the original article.
    There, about the role of the military in the collapse of the USSR, a couple of phrases in total, to whip up horror. Like you won't listen to the party, China will fall apart.

    And the rest is about something else. Restless in the Celestial Empire.

    There, it turns out that the military until recently could do business, and not just earn extra money, but specifically produce products for military units.
    And naturally, a bond with the oligarchs arose, which developed into opposition to the CCP and which almost staged a military coup in 2013-2015.

    Comrade Xi is tightening the screws, changing laws, including the CCP's charter, trying to centralize power in the hands of the party. But not the fact that it will work out.
    Perhaps we will soon see the collapse of the last communist regime. wink
  15. Mitroha
    Mitroha 17 May 2021 20: 18
    0
    Quote: Overlock
    Planning, rigid centralization and isolation from the rest of the world in the late 70s led the Chinese economy to stagnation. As with us.
    But why then our paths diverged?

    See my comment above
  16. Mother Theresa
    Mother Theresa 17 May 2021 21: 30
    +1
    The Chinese military learned a lesson when the Red Guards and Zoofani were unleashed in China. They learned the lesson well and therefore when the students left Tiananmen they were quickly dispersed.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 17 May 2021 21: 34
      +1
      Quote: Mother Teresa
      The Chinese military learned a lesson when the Red Guards and Zoofani were unleashed in China.

      And who gave birth to the "red guards of the revolution"? Not a party?
      1. Mother Theresa
        Mother Theresa 17 May 2021 22: 16
        +1
        Of course the party represented by Mao versus the party represented by Deng.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 17 May 2021 22: 21
          0
          The fact of the matter is that the Maoist party members decided to "cheat" revisionists and all-communists who dream of a "capitalist sandwich" ... But the army was behaving a little detached at this time ...
          1. Mother Theresa
            Mother Theresa 19 May 2021 21: 26
            0
            There is one problem in our dialogue, you can always give me a quote from Mao or the decision of the plenum. And I can only argue that Mao all the time fought with someone in the party, it was the "proteges" of Moscow Wang Ming, Bo Gu, Luo Fu and other 28 Bolsheviks. Then he eliminates Gao Gang, Zhao Shushi and Xi Zhongxun and other "five horses".
            Then in the company "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools compete" to increase publicity and criticism of the party. Then "Cultural Revolution" walked through those who especially strongly criticized the party in the campaign of one hundred flowers and shoot Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. And then the army suppressed the Cultural Revolution movement. And now Defense Minister Lin Biao "fled" to the USSR. And so on until his death. It is very difficult to understand this, there are no sources. The outcome is known. Mao shakes hands with Nixon.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 20 May 2021 09: 23
              +1
              Quote: Mother Teresa
              our dialogue has one problem ...

              And in my opinion, a very good dialogue turned out.
              When I read the book "Unknown Mao" by Yun Zhang, I began to look at this historical character a little differently. An interesting book, albeit with an "undisguised western touch."

              Quote: Mother Teresa
              Mao fought with someone all the time in the party ...

              He fought point-wise with those who were comprehensively superior to him, especially his early achievements (before the formation of the PRC), intelligence, with those who were too close and knew what the real Mao was ...
              The same Gao Gang paid for this: he conquered an entire province (while Mao "read and walked", he dared to work in advance ... The result is logical.

              Quote: Mother Teresa
              The outcome is known. Mao shakes hands with Nixon.

              And who could reap at that time? Khrushchev or Brezhnev? Since he belonged to these "leaders", it has long been no secret ...
              1. Mother Theresa
                Mother Theresa 22 May 2021 16: 29
                +1
                I apologize for answering so late, a lot of things spring the beginning of the repair program of preparation for the AWP. Yong Zhang "Unknown Mao" saw the book on sale did not dare to buy it, it was too big and the reviews were completely negative. In my opinion, as a politician, Mao was strong "Don't look what the Chinese says, but see what the Chinese is doing" (Special Region of China) and he understood China and the Chinese, the American Sinologist V. Golubnichi calculated that 22% of all quotes in the four-volume collection of Mao's works Zedong accounts for Confucius and neo-Confucians, while Marx and Engels account for only about 4% (Mao's Way). The only one who could really beat him was Zhou Enlai (On a mission to China).
                Gao Gang was a Manchuorm and understood perfectly well that in China Mao had no place for his people. Complete assimilation. And that is why he proposed to Stalin to include Manchuria in the USSR. Moreover, he gave Stalin incriminating documents on Mao.
                Well, after in Moscow, Mao, in the presence of Brezhnev, was called an old kolosh.
                Comrade Zhou Enlai. In the conversation, two thoughts went parallel: about the removal of Khrushchev and about the desire to remove Mao Zedong. One could understand these statements as incitement to the removal of Mao Zedong. But I'm not sure about that. If anyone makes such plans, then they are futile attempts and illusions. This does not in the least infringe on the authority of Comrade Mao Zedong, but it is the greatest insult and provocation for the Chinese people and the Chinese Communist Party. Can this help improve relations between the two parties and the two countries? This can only lead to a deterioration in relations between them.
                Comrade Brezhnev L.I. First of all, I would like to say on behalf of the Presidium and the Central Committee of the CPSU that we are satisfied that the Central Committee of the CPC has decided to send such a representative delegation headed by Comrade Zhou Enlai to Moscow. [...] In considering this issue at the Presidium, Comrade Malinovsky did not participate, since he is neither a member nor a candidate member of the Presidium.
                Nixon is the president who won the Cold War. With this handshake, he gave a clear signal to many in the Kremlin: "We have agreed with Mao, we will agree with you." And many officials in the USSR watched as the party members Deng Xiaoping become millionaires and send their children to study in the United States and Europe. I answered very chaotically to read there is a little time, but to write at all.
                Of all that I read, I liked this short article, brief and to the point.
                https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/ПЕРЕГОВОРЫ-Н-С-ХРУЩЕВА-С-МАО-ЦЗЭДУНОМ-31-июля-3-августа-1958-г-и-2-октября-1959-г
  17. anclevalico
    anclevalico 18 May 2021 07: 46
    -1
    The Chinese have learned their lesson, but we have not.
  18. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 18 May 2021 10: 24
    0
    The translation is somewhat clumsy. And this Josephine Ma is most likely not from the mainland of the PRC, but from Hong Kong. It is felt that she represents the political realities of the PRC very approximately.
  19. Yves762
    Yves762 18 May 2021 10: 37
    0
    The collapse of the USSR in 1991 was a lesson that convinced the party that it must retain power over the military without allowing its rule to be challenged. ... The Soviet Communist Party lost its power over the military, so its regime was dismantled.


    .what.

    She's like comrade. Columnist Josephine Ma got it right ...
    Apparently it was not tobacco ... repeat
    Although ... maybe this is still her sincere opinion, and not a guarantee of the very policy of comrade. Si.?. request
  20. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 18 May 2021 10: 48
    +1
    Not only does the party have influence over the army in the PRC, but the military is well represented in party structures at all levels. And at the state level, the army has direct representation in the National People's Congress. In the USSR, there was no direct representation of the army in the Supreme Soviet. It is worth mentioning that formally there are two supreme military councils in the PRC - the Military Council of the CPC Central Committee, elected by the party leadership, and the Central Military Council of the PRC, elected at the NPC session on the proposal of the PRC Chairman, but, again, only after preliminary discussion by the top party leadership. In practice, the composition of these two high councils is almost completely the same, and they are headed by one person. For convenience, both of these councils are referred to simply as the Central Military Council. The one who heads it is the main person in the PRC. Since the beginning of the 90s, there has been a tradition of combining the posts of General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee, Chairman of the PRC and Chairman of the Central Military Council. At the same time, power from one leader is not transferred at once, but in stages, within about six months. First, the new leader becomes the General Secretary of the Central Committee, then after a while he is elected Chairman of the PRC, and after a while he is elected Chairman of the Party and State Military Councils. And the old leader, accordingly, first ceases to be the General Secretary, then the Chairman of the PRC, and only then leaves the posts of chairmen of the military councils.
  21. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 18 May 2021 11: 45
    +1
    Compared to the USSR, there is a feeling that the army leadership in the PRC occupies a stronger position in the party and state structures. And, again, the army is more influential than the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of State Security, because two or three top army leaders are deputy chairmen of the Central Military Commission of the PRC and are members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPC. It is interesting that, unlike the two vice-chairmen of the Central Military Commission of the PRC, the Minister of Defense has not recently been a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee, but is only a member of the Central Military Commission and a member of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. That is, at present, he is not the most influential military man. By the way, the Ministry of Public Security (an analogue of our Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Russian Guard, the border service of the FSB and partly other services of the FSB, as well as the FSO) has always been headed by party officials in recent decades with experience in managing large regions (provinces or autonomous regions) and (or) industries industry and large companies (metallurgical, oil, etc.), which often previously had nothing to do with security agencies. The second most influential department in the state security system, the Ministry of State Security (performs the functions of our SVR and partly the FSB) is also most often headed by party officials, although sometimes it was also headed by professionals. Thus, the MOB and MGB are also under the strict control of the party. Moreover, unlike army generals who can occupy high posts in the Central Military Commission, in the Politburo of the Central Committee, in the State Council, Chinese "chekists" and policemen from the MOB and MGB have many times less chances of getting into the top party-state leadership of the PRC, and become the head of their ministries. A military man can occupy a major post in the MOB and MGB. This is especially true of the People's Armed Police (in another translation of the police), an analogue of our Rosgvardia, which really depends more on the Central Military Council, and not on its Ministry of Public Security. An intelligence officer from the MOB and MGB systems cannot take a major position in the leadership of the Chinese army. At the same time, internal security in the PLA and personnel policy were under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Main Political Directorate of the PLA. Plus, the real powers have always been with the party organizations of military units.
    Here is a big quote from Kokoshin: "Neither the Ministry of State Security (MGB) of the PRC, which is in charge of counterintelligence agencies, nor the Ministry of Public Security of China, which has bodies similar to the fifth KGB department (which fought against" ideological sabotage "), had no authority to intervene in matters of security within the PLA. - Its issues have always been fully within the competence of the system of the Central Military Council of the PRC through the corresponding service of the Main Political Directorate of the PLA noted above. Many experts noted that this security service was in charge of criminal matters in the PLA. The PLA of security agencies (independent of the Chinese Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Public Security), as well as personnel agencies, made the Chinese Main Political Directorate in the event of a possible "upheaval in the Celestial Empire" a much more stable organization than the Glavpur of the Soviet Army and Navy, which did not possess t What structures and powers. The lack of control over the PLA by the MGB of the PRC significantly distinguished (and distinguishes) the system of relations between the state security organs and the armed forces of the PRC from the system that existed in the USSR. The presence of its own security service within the PLA undoubtedly emphasized the special status of the military in the Chinese system of power, in Chinese society (taking into account the above-mentioned lack of one-man command in the PLA, the greater weight of political workers than it was in the USSR Armed Forces after the restoration of one-man command in them in 1942). " http://viperson.ru/articles/voennaya-reforma-v-knr-2015-2020-gg-oboronnye-vneshnepoliticheskie-i-vnutripoliticheskie-aspekty
    As we can see, the PLA has never had any special calving subordinate to the state security organs. There, on the contrary, if something happens, the army itself can correct the activities of the police and state security.) That is, the Chinese KGB officers have always occupied a subordinate position in comparison with the army.
  22. max68
    max68 18 May 2021 17: 12
    0
    It is wrong to explain in China. The USSR was not betrayed by the military, the USSR was betrayed by the Central Committee. So the Chinese should not puff out their cheeks and lick Li's ass, but watch him so as not to betray him.
  23. Logic
    Logic 19 May 2021 14: 45
    0
    Nevertheless, in the PRC there is still a latent opposition to the Communist Party, this is the diplomatic corps, which almost openly sabotages the political guidelines of the party.