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.
“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 degenerates 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”
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”.
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