Historical origins of the party-army relations in the Soviet Union and China

Abstract

It is established that Party-army relation followed a “separated” pattern in the Soviet Union as opposed to an “infused” pattern in China. This article explores the historical origin of this difference in the revolutionary periods. By analyzing the biographies of communist military elites, it argues that this discrepancy took shape before the revolutionary takeover and resulted from the differentiated intensities of warfare across Russia and China. In China, the numerous civil wars and military defeats, radicalized the old military structure and boosted societal militarization; thus, eroding the mutual exclusion between the military and revolutionaries. The effect was lesser in Tsarist Russia than in prerevolutionary China, making the old military a conservative and professional corporate that the Bolsheviks could not completely subordinate to Party control.

The Historical Different Meanings of Chinese Communist Party’s ‘The Party Commands Gun’ Under Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping

“…Analysts say that, in comparison to the Soviet Union, China’s party–military connection is more harmonious and closely linked than the Soviet Union’s because China’s revolution is far more complex and harder than the Russian proletariat revolution, though KMT’s five large-scale encirclements and suppression operations suppress the CCP regime. He proposes that because China experienced multiple civil wars and military defeats in the early 20th century, the old military structure was overthrown by the Chinese proletarian revolutionaries, and the high integration between the army and the revolutionaries was not found in the military of the communist country (Zhou 2019).…”

An Exploration of Chinese-Russian Youth Humanistic Exchanges and Cooperation Based on VAR Modeling

“…The two sides have gradually strengthened the importance of humanistic exchanges, and the practice of promoting humanistic exchanges has become more and more active and in-depth. The strategic position of humanistic exchanges has been rapidly upgraded and has become an important part of the five major areas of cooperation between China and Russia [4][5][6].…”

Impact of Domestic and Transboundary Conflicts on Militarization

“…In some states/countries, political dominance with all the relevant discretionary powers makes a state vulnerable which can cause political riots and distress among people, triggering paramilitary enforcement to control those activities (Ishiyama, 2012). Political or state conflicts are also a significant factor in accelerating militarization and its associated activities (Mukherjee, 2014) because political party(s) in a few countries have a strong influence on Military command, which make them superior in holding key positions and significant decisions (Zhou, 2019).…”