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.
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.