What you described is a legitimate approach - it’s the Trotskyists view of the world.
The Trots (Chen Duxiu faction) welcomed and encouraged the Imperial Japanese invasion because they believed that the upheaval and destruction caused by the Japanese army will provoke the masses to rise up and overthrow the bourgeois Nationalist government.
This earned them the “Han traitor” moniker (汉奸) by Mao, perhaps the worst insult you can ever receive from him.
Despite the Nationalists murdering hundreds of thousands of communists just the years prior, Mao decided that a united front with the Nationalists against the Japanese invaders was still the correct path to take. And guess what? It turned out to be beneficial for the Communist Party, who would eventually overthrow the Nationalists during the Liberation War despite being massively outnumbered and outgunned.
This is why Mao is so revered in China, despite his mistakes and flaws. His ability to understand the gravity of the situation and see the entire picture in a grand scheme of world events remain unparalleled to this day.
If the Trots have had their way, China would have succumbed and turned into a Japanese colony. It’s very important to realize that if things had taken just a slightly different turn, the communists would not have won in China.
No one is welcoming this fascist train. Like, I understand your disdain for the American left but the American left is not cheering this on in the hopes of some glorious revolution.
What we are doing is sharpening our knives as best we can because this is going to get hot fast.
I welcome the democrats to act as your nationalists and actually put some metal into the fight. At which point, I will side with them.
The reason that there was an alliance to be formed at all was that the communists existed as their own, separate political party.
The relationship between Mao and the nationalists, and the lessons we can take from it, are more complex than this “always capitulate to the lesser evil” nonsense. There were several times when the two sides formed a united front and several times that such agreements fell apart or were betrayed. If the lesson from Mao is simply capitulation to the lesser evil, Mao would have just joined the KMT and abandoned any sort of radical positions to that might have caused contention.
Of course, accelerationism is stupid nonsense as it always has been.
Edit to add a thought: the communists at that time had just endured the long march, and the leadership was tested and battle-hardened. When they said “revolution later” they meant “revolution later.” In contrast, in Europe, there were a bunch of nominally socialist parties and when they said “revolution later,” they meant, “revolution never,” because they were full of opportunists. Imagine if the SDP in Germany was like, “Well, it finally happened, the conditions are right for revolution so we’re doing a revolution now.” No, if you want a temporary alliance with the Democrats, it needs to be actually temporary, with a clearly set objective and end conditions. Otherwise it’s just liberalism with extra steps.
What you described is a legitimate approach - it’s the Trotskyists view of the world.
The Trots (Chen Duxiu faction) welcomed and encouraged the Imperial Japanese invasion because they believed that the upheaval and destruction caused by the Japanese army will provoke the masses to rise up and overthrow the bourgeois Nationalist government.
This earned them the “Han traitor” moniker (汉奸) by Mao, perhaps the worst insult you can ever receive from him.
Despite the Nationalists murdering hundreds of thousands of communists just the years prior, Mao decided that a united front with the Nationalists against the Japanese invaders was still the correct path to take. And guess what? It turned out to be beneficial for the Communist Party, who would eventually overthrow the Nationalists during the Liberation War despite being massively outnumbered and outgunned.
This is why Mao is so revered in China, despite his mistakes and flaws. His ability to understand the gravity of the situation and see the entire picture in a grand scheme of world events remain unparalleled to this day.
If the Trots have had their way, China would have succumbed and turned into a Japanese colony. It’s very important to realize that if things had taken just a slightly different turn, the communists would not have won in China.
No one is welcoming this fascist train. Like, I understand your disdain for the American left but the American left is not cheering this on in the hopes of some glorious revolution.
What we are doing is sharpening our knives as best we can because this is going to get hot fast.
I welcome the democrats to act as your nationalists and actually put some metal into the fight. At which point, I will side with them.
The reason that there was an alliance to be formed at all was that the communists existed as their own, separate political party.
The relationship between Mao and the nationalists, and the lessons we can take from it, are more complex than this “always capitulate to the lesser evil” nonsense. There were several times when the two sides formed a united front and several times that such agreements fell apart or were betrayed. If the lesson from Mao is simply capitulation to the lesser evil, Mao would have just joined the KMT and abandoned any sort of radical positions to that might have caused contention.
Of course, accelerationism is stupid nonsense as it always has been.
Edit to add a thought: the communists at that time had just endured the long march, and the leadership was tested and battle-hardened. When they said “revolution later” they meant “revolution later.” In contrast, in Europe, there were a bunch of nominally socialist parties and when they said “revolution later,” they meant, “revolution never,” because they were full of opportunists. Imagine if the SDP in Germany was like, “Well, it finally happened, the conditions are right for revolution so we’re doing a revolution now.” No, if you want a temporary alliance with the Democrats, it needs to be actually temporary, with a clearly set objective and end conditions. Otherwise it’s just liberalism with extra steps.