Dear comrades,
As we all know there are two soviet eras pre and post death of Stalin. We all know Khrushchev basically did a coupe detat, by killing all Stalinists and also by starting the anti Stalin propaganda. We know he was the cause of the Soviet Sino split.
But what exactly caused the split? What policies did he push that were reformist or capitalist in nature ? How exactly did he fuck up? I know the results, but I lack in knowledge of the causes.
The Sino-Soviet split was caused by both sides.
Don't let others tell you otherwise.
People are just repeating Grover Furr ad nauseum in this and other writers.
Yeah, that doesn't mean both sides were equally responsible, though. You could say the Chinese could have tried doing some rapprochement (and evidently they did in the late 70s), and, you know, NOT helping the imperialists in Afghanistan, but at least when it came to Khrushchev they had a point.
They had no point when it came to Khruschev.
They should've worked with the Soviet Union diplomatically in order to combat American imperialism, which was the greater evil. The Soviet Union post-1956 was not imperialist, objectively speaking. So the PRC had no point and had to change its economic policy even after the CultRev.
Except that the course Khrushchev took ultimately paved the way for capitalist restoration and disintegration of the USSR. Not to mention that, as others pointed out, the way he came to power was something akin to a coup d'etat. And it's not like I'm blindly defending Mao, but at the end of the day you always have to consider the totality of circumstances under which a given decision is being made.
The problems of capitalist restoration extend back to the Russian Revolution, not just Khruschev.
Sure. That doesn't mean he's suddenly absolved of all responsibility. Criticism towards him is valid and necessary, just like criticism towards any leader - Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, whoever
I didn't say he was suddenly absolved of all responsibility.
The title of the post. When I say they had a point when it came to him, I am referring to his massive mistakes on all fronts. History proved the Chinese right. Yes, maybe they should have been more pragmatic, maybe they did overreact, that is not the point. The point is - he did fuck up, big time, and Mao correctly pointed out his mistakes.
"The title of the post."
So? I didn't say Khruschev didn't do anything wrong.
Also, this was Late Mao so I don't care.
Even though every single point he said was correct, late or not late. Really bad take, comrade.
Removed by mod
“For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle continues as an objective law independent of man’s will, differing only in form from what it was before the taking of power.
After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that:
a) The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the "paradise" they have been deprived of.
b) New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.
c) Political removed and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and the pervasive, corrupting influence of the petty bourgeoisie.
d) The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist society are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists’ threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration.
Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin’s.
In socialist society, the overthrown bourgeoisie and other reactionary classes remain strong for quite a long time, and indeed in certain respects are quite powerful. They have a thousand and one links with the international bourgeoisie. They are not reconciled to their defeat and stubbornly continue to engage in trials of strength with the proletariat. They conduct open and hidden struggles against the proletariat in every field.”
This is a piece I took from ProleWiki. Mao's criticisms derived from Lenin, he didn't add anything out of this world. If you say my correctness depends on me declaring something to be correct, please point to a specific thing from the text above and explain your disagreement, other than "this was Late Mao, so I don't care"
Do you mind linking the piece? I haven't found it on a quick search but would like to read more.
Sure thing. I don't exactly remember where I got that from, it's been cited in different articles. But here's one of the places you can find it, it's down there in the Reference section - number 12
Everyone derives their Marxism-Leninism from, well, Lenin, including Khruschev too.
You're not really telling me why the cited is correct.
Because history proved the theory - when the USSR was overthrown precisely because of the things I cited.
The USSR being overthrown doesn't make Mao correct for the reasons cited. Why would it?
You're being vague again. Explain yourself.
Let's see.
Mao pointed out the fact that class struggle continues under socialism. Khrushchev abandons the importance of class struggle, DotP and proclaims that class differences are all but resolved. What happened? Not only were they not resolved, but because of his dubious economic policies a certain stratum within the USSR was born who would then become the main material force behind the overthrow of the USSR.
Mao also pointed out that petit bourgeoisie mentality may still be able to penetrate the ranks of the party and seep through the political apparatus. That is exactly what happened (for further info - read Roger Keeran's book).
He also said that external forces will never abandon their efforts in destabilizing a socialist society. As we saw with policies enacted by Carter and especially Reagan with their whole SDI shtick - the US and the West were never interested in peaceful coexistence; they wanted to "spend the USSR into bankrupcy". They proposed one-sided deals for disarmament, which to their shock Gorbachev accepted while gaining nothing in return.
Mao was right because history proved him right. This isn't vague, this is historic fact
Okay.
Have you read Khruschev or are you just quoting Mao here?
lol
Stop deflecting. And stop blindly downvoting everything. It's not about reading Khrushchev, on its own it would not do you any good. It's about looking at history and seeing which decisions and which policies lead to which consequences.
From the look of it, you're either emotionally invested in defending Khrushchev, or slandering Mao, or just being petty. Mao said certain things, history has shown us those things were correct regardless of who said them. It's not only my viewpoint, or Mao's, or anyone specific, really. No amount of reading Khrushchev would change that, it has nothing to do with it.
"It’s not about reading Khrushchev"
So you'd read Mao but not Khruschev and, therefore, you don't know Khruchev's own argument, just your own personal strawman of the man, for all you know.
Sure, just take Mao's word for it even though he was known for getting a lot of shit wrong during this era lol
That's not a strawman. A strawman would be me distorting Khrushchev's words and attacking a distorted version of them to suit my purposes. I'm not doing that, I am looking at history - what Khrushchev actually DID, and then I draw conclusions from that. Mao has nothing to do with this.
Ironically, it is you who created a strawman - you are trying to criticize me as though the only driving factor of my criticisms of Khrushchev is "well, Mao said corn man bad so I accept that uncritically".
"That’s not a strawman. A strawman would be me distorting Khrushchev’s words and attacking a distorted version of them to suit my purposes. I’m not doing that, I am looking at history - what Khrushchev actually DID, and then I draw conclusions from that. Mao has nothing to do with this."
No, no, it's definitely a strawman and either way you're scuttling the point I'm making.
"Ironically, it is you who created a strawman - you are trying to criticize me as though the only driving factor of my criticisms of Khrushchev is “well, Mao said corn man bad so I accept that uncritically”.
You're not pointing out where the strawman is; you just vaguely alluded to my supposed strawman.
So far, you've managed to divert the discussion.
lol
I did. Right here: "…So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…" - this implies that what you are saying is this - my views on Khrushchev derive solely from Mao's opinion, and thus it is wrong to just take Mao's word on it. I never implied that my views on Khrushchev are based on Mao's views, thus your criticism (this one - "…So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…") attacks a distorted version of my reasoning. The real reason I criticize Khrushchev is not because Mao or whoever, but because of historical analysis of the specific policies that were enacted under his leadership, and of the consequences we're witnessing today.
Let's see... The post was about Khrushchev, you centered around the Sino-Soviet split. When I pointed out Khrushchev's responsibility for it, you brought up the Russian Revolution as though that somehow excuses him and not merely explains the ideological school of his. Then when I pointed out that Mao was right in harshly criticizing Khrushchev's revisionism (as history proved us) - you started attacking Mao as though the fact it was "late Mao" somehow made him wrong, even though,again - history proved it with USSR being overthrown. Then I explained point by point what Mao said, and compared that to the actualities of USSR's history. You then used an "ad hominem" argument here - "Have you read Khruschev or are you just quoting Mao here?". Suddenly my words are discredited because I didn't read Khrushchev, as though I was obliged to. Then it is me who created a strawman.
Is it really me who is constantly diverting the discussion?
You're still not pointing out where I did that. Simply accusing you of something is not strawmanning.
Eyyup.
You've changed the topic several times.
All I said was that we needed to learn Khruschev's side of the story and then you started arguing against historical research. Bravo.
Another strawman. I didn't argue against historical research, all I said was memoirs alone aren't enough to give you a full picture. In any case, the analyses do take into account Khrushchev's memoirs.
I did, several times. You did it here: ...So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev and, therefore, you don’t know Khruchev’s own argument, just your own personal strawman of the man, for all you know... Sure, just take Mao’s word for it even though he was known for getting a lot of shit wrong during this era lol...
You criticize me "taking Mao’s word" and "not reading Khrushchev's own argument", implying that is the sole reason why I criticize Khrushchev by creating a caricature of him and criticizing that caricature. I did not do that, I repeated multiple times where my viewpoint comes from.
You do realize that the entire thread is publicly visible. I don't understand what you are doing here.
Removed by mod
Hi there, welcome to the end of the comment cave. While we encourage healthy discussion we feel like this particular comment chain has broken free of said healthy discussion. Please let eachother be and agree to disagree or find a way to keep the debate a bit more constructive, otherwise we sadly feel like we have to end the thread as a whole. Thanks.
You got it
Hell yeah!
Can you elaborate on that /gen
Much of the population was still quite conservative and, for example, when the Soviet Union incorporated many of the Eastern European countries, it was incorporating many of the problems from those regions as well, including a strong ultra-right element.
Edit: A lot of these people would appear in government to.
I seriously cannot believe all the blame is pinned on the Soviets in every single comment when you could say China hung the USSR out to dry in every ideological battle ever
I think that's sort-of besides the point, though I respect what you're trying to say.