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.
But what exactly caused the split?
You sort of answered this one yourself. Among numerous factors it is precisely the things you mentioned - the de-Stalinisation nonsense, the purge against pro-Stalin elements (if you can even call them that - they were just anti-revisionist Marxists-Leninists), blatant revisionism of Marxism-Leninism and its core principles (continuous class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat, the party of the proletariat), blind optimism when it comes to the national question
What policies did he push that were reformist or capitalist in nature ? How exactly did he fuck up?
They weren't all strictly capitalist in nature, to be honest. It would be more accurate to say that his blunderous policies created conditions for capitalist restoration inside Soviet Socialism.
The policies typically referred are such: he dismantled the state-owned MTSs (machine and tractor stations), putting the responsibility of maintaining and repairing the machinery on collective farms. He dismantled central planning, replacing existing institutions with decentralized regional planning committees, which greatly exacerbated the existing difficulties with planning. He encouraged the peasantry to keep more privately-owned produce and livestock, essentially strengthening NEP-style measures without second thought. He adopted wage-leveling - a mistake of monstrous proportions, which decimated incentive for production growth (more of a left-deviation, honestly - the USSR was not ready for such a thing), and also created severe discontent among the intellectuals, prompting them to look for other means of enrichment, siphoning this strata of society into the "second" economy who would then constitute would-be capitalists in its embryonic form.
He also started the Virgin Lands cultivation bullshit, instead of trying to make a qualitative shift in agriculture. The idea was also to emulate US agricultural practice with heavy use of mineral fertilizer. The results were disastrous, partly due to the fact that initial yield seemed to have increased (but that was only true for land already cultivated), which gave overall sense of false promise, and also due to the abandonment of Stalin's afforestation program, which worsened issues with droughts.
There were also big mistakes of political nature on top of those related to the economy, including the damage done to CPSU - recruiting too many people of questionable ideological strength, massively increasing the % of intelligentsia compared to industrial proletariat, needless bureaucratization, etc. He also drove a split into industrial and agricultural factions inside the CPSU.
Simply said, his overall strategy represented a Bukharinist right-deviation within the political spectrum of the CPSU. Something Stalin warned might happen in a peasant-dominated country.
The list is hella incomplete, please feel free to add more stuff.
This is an excellent answer comrade! This topic is very important imo as it helps us to understand why things in the SU went so wrong later on. The capitalist restorationists around Gorbachev did not suddenly appear out of nowhere in the 80s, the groundwork for the economic mistakes and the degeneration of the CPSU had been laid decades prior. This whole subject really should have its own section on Prolewiki that newcomers who have these same questions can be referred to.
the groundwork for the economic mistakes and the degeneration of the CPSU had been laid decades prior
To all of this I'll add that many of the reforms implemented under Khrushchev (or at least the general idea behind them) weren't necessarily out of place - things like some amount of social liberalization or increasing availability of consumption goods (the light industry), given what the USSR and its people have been through. As is always the case, the appeal for these things didn't appear out of nowhere - there were material reasons. And, of course, if implemented prudently, they could have produced positive results for the USSR. It's just that the way they were conducted was overall a failure. Khrushchev's shallow understanding of Marxist theory, his tendency of favoring short-term easy solutions aimed at quick returns (opportunism, essentially), as well as monumental loss of experienced ML cadres certainly played a part too.
Excellent write up thus far that summarizes the many mistakes seen under Khrushchev's term.
"Socialism Betrayed - Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny. An absolutely indispensable book to give you a starting point and moderately deep insights.
There are more books, like "The Destruction of the Soviet Economic System - An Insider's History" by Vladimir Kontorovich, I suggest you put those off for later, as they are more detailed but dry, filled with technical language.
It's not directly about the topic, but there is a lot of context that indirectly shows how Khrushchev and Trotsky both essentially operated as wreckers when it came to anything involving Stalin. I have no respect for Trots anymore after reading the things both Trotsky and Khrushchev said and wrote, not due to having a pro-Stalin bias (I was neutral on him at that time I read these), but because they essentially served neoliberal interests and did everything in their power to dismantle or cripple the Soviet project along the way. In particular, they tried to reverse all of the progress that was attributed to Stalin.
"Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend" Domenico Losurdo. It uses references mostly from Stalin's detractors to paint a portrait of him, whether he was good or bad. There are two sources that I think are from two English translations that you can get for free, but I don't really know the differences:
There are two sources that I think are from two English translations that you can get for free, but I don't really know the differences
The one from Iskra Books is most likely better. The one on Prolewiki is the English translation of a Portuguese translation of the original Italian, whereas the one on Iskra Books is a direct English translation from the original Italian.
As Deng said in an interview:
Khrushchev only ever brought pain to the Chinese people. Stalin, on the other hand, did some good for us. After the founding of the People’s Republic, he helped us to build up an industrial complex that is still the foundation of the Chinese economy. He didn’t help us for free — fine, we had to pay him — but he helped us. And, when Khrushchev came to power, everything changed. Khrushchev broke all the agreements between China and the Soviet Union, all the contracts that had been signed under Stalin — hundreds of contracts.
https://redsails.org/deng-and-fallaci/
By my understanding, this was in large part because Khrushchev wanted to put Soviet military bases in the PRC and the latter refused.
Interviews like this make me think that excellent journalism is effectively dead in our times. We are never gonna get a cross-cultural dialogue this now.
Tbf there was also lots of chauvinism from the USSR towards the PRC, starting with the liberation of Manchuria from the Japanese. The seeds of the split were planted early.
idk, I personally think he rather lost his right to that with all the lying in the Secret Speech, which was then cover for slaughtering Stalin's supporters in the political establishment, but you can do what you like, of course
That's a big statement. You really don't think anyone loses that?
Including conscious Right-wingers and Rightist-serving wreckers?
The collapse of the USSR and the ensuing tragedy (global tragedy btw) suggest otherwise.
Imagine saying something akin to "let's hear Gorbachev's side of the story - we need the complete history" in 1993. There was an interview - it was bogus through and through. You won't get the complete history that way.
I'm not talking about that dumb interview, I mean memoirs, personal correspondence, people that were close to him, etc.
My friend tells me that there are also a lot of speeches of his with ideas that weren't even fully his own.
Sounds like an area of investigation!
I mean...
What you are suggesting is that we time travel and to get information that we don't have right now.
For obvious reasons we cannot time travel and do that. Obviously it would be nice to know how they rationalised their disastrous viewpoints. But we can't do that. Since they are dead and we cannot time travel.
So what are you getting at? Am I understanding you point correctly or what am I missing?
We do have the information though.
We have Khruschev's memoirs and speeches and supplementary theoretical texts lol
Hell, his works are literally cited in Kuusinen's work a lot.
No "time travel" required! Just old-fashioned historical research.
You raise a good point. If someone is interested, they can peer into Khruschev's side of the disaster themselves. The books are freely available here: https://annas-archive.org/search?q=Memoirs+of+Nikita+Khrushchev
We have Khruschev’s memoirs and speeches and supplementary theoretical texts lol
Memoirs alone will not give you the full picture - rather, they will give you someone's viewpoint, however distorted it might be. One must inevitably compare that to other information.
Gorbachev, for instance, claimed in his memoirs that "Glasnost unleashed forces they could not control". That was at the very least very dishonest - he himself went to great lengths and encouraged criticism of the CPSU through the same media he handed over to Yakovlev and other anti-communist forces. What good would it do reading this part of his memoir if you don't have other sources of information to verify it against?
Okay, but Khruschev's not Gorby.
And you already give an example of insight that historical research and reading can provide.
Thanks for proving my point.
Okay, but Khruschev’s not Gorby.
The point stands - memoirs alone are not a reliable source, his or Gorby's. Conceptually
The point doesn't stand because we don't know that due to the difference in character.
memoirs alone are not a reliable source
The point doesn’t stand because we don’t know that due to the difference in character.
What is it that we don't know (due to the difference in character)? I am genuinely lost. What does that mean?
I don't, please don't presume what I know. Please explain yourself, in good faith
No. I'm sorry, I'll just stop here. It would be better to finish this conversation, I don't like the way it is going.
- Showthis why I love arguments on hexbear, lots of pretty colors!
I'm gonna need a picture of Khrushchev's hog, for historical purposes.
Please post.
I've read most of your comments, and I get a really strange feeling from them. Almost like "I'm not going to bother reading Kruschev myself, but you all are WRONG because you've never read him".
As an ML community, we're committed to historical materialism (you can see an excellent overview of it from Marx here: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism). What I take from that is we have can have a deeper understanding of history than "mere" historians, who still typically lack any understanding of class or political economy.
And we especially don't need to read all the "Great Men" who "made things happen". We know that history is a process of class struggle, and understand its outcomes as such
And I would add that there's especially little value in studying the far right if our goal is to understand what they want.
Sartre put it best:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
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.
The Sino-Soviet split was caused by both sides.
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
how did Khrushchev f*ck up?
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.
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.
“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"
This is a piece I took from ProleWiki.
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.
The USSR being overthrown doesn’t make Mao correct for the reasons cited. Why would it?
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
Have you read Khruschev or are you just quoting Mao here?
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
strawman of the man
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.
..So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev.. Sure, just take Mao’s word for it..
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
You’re not pointing out where the strawman is; you just vaguely alluded to my supposed strawman.
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.
So far, you’ve managed to divert the discussion.
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.
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.
You’re still not pointing out where I did that.
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’ve changed the topic several times.
You do realize that the entire thread is publicly visible. I don't understand what you are doing here.
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.
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.
