u/ThePeoplesBadger - originally from r/GenZhou
It seems that based on what I have read:
- WW1 and the foreign-backed civil war utterly destroyed Russia and its population, but the Bolsheviks won out after a very long and drawn out period of devastation.
- Lenin introduced the NEP to begin to build the basis for an eventually socialist economy by developing industry and agriculture with similar practices to other capitalist countries (but without imperialism)
- There was disagreement in the Bolshevik leadership after Lenin’s strokes and passing on how to move forward. Some top party leaders suggested moving forward “at a snail’s pace,” but it seems that Stalin had a very “yes we can” attitude, introduced five year plans, and completely revolutionized the country/countries in socialist construction.
- When Stalin died, Khrushchev turned around and in his “secret speech,” condemned Stalin and hung all blame on Stalin for all of the problems in the USSR.
- Khrushchev initiated changes and reforms that were seen by China as extremely problematic and revisionist, contributing to the Sino-Soviet split.
- China followed some very similar approaches to building socialism as the USSR but also approaches unique to the material nature of China, hence “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
- Mao dies in the 70s (right? I could have the dates wrong) and the torch is passed to Deng Xiaoping, and China opens up to foreign trade and meets with Nixon and China becomes an economic power on the international market.
- It seems like since then, China has been working deliberately and exactingly toward eliminating poverty, raising the living standards, and building up industries and trade across the entire spectrum.
Please correct any misunderstandings I may have above, as these are the understandings that form the basis of my questions.
- What were the reforms initiated by Khrushchev?
- What were the reforms initiated by Deng?
- How/why were the Khrushchev reforms revisionist?
- Were the Deng reforms revisionist, and regardless, why or why not?
u/ScienceSleep99 - originally from r/GenZhouI am glad you asked this question and people are finally starting to wake up. But this should be an opportunity to really learn from history and synthesize theory, but I doubt that will happen and there will be a vicious attack on anyone who might consider Dengism or SWCC revisionist.
Technically, SWCC and Deng’s theories were and are revisionist. They seem to be very much based off of Bukharin’s theories, and the NEP. But that’s ok. There is always this big fight between MLs about this issue as though revising thought is extremely controversial when it really shouldn’t be. I think because the issue is framed as non-revisionists = pure, and revisionists = capitalists*.* The reality is that Deng and Co were committed MLs but subscribed to a fundamentally different theory for the building of socialism and rehabilitated Bukharin’s theories.
The main objections to both Khrushchevite and Bukharinite revisionism is that they tended to be Marxist Leninism from a petite-bourgeois, rather than a proletarian, perspective. I do have to agree with that personally. It all leads to seeing socialism as a much more social democratic project, mimicking the West in its developmental models and competing with them on material consumption. These were all the complaints lobbied at Khrushchev and can be seen as the complaints lobbied at Dengists by left-oppositionists in China, yesterday and today.
On the other side of the coin, most of the pro-China stuff we see, even coming from China tends to label any criticism lobbied at SWCC as “ultra left” and “dogmatic”, which can be true, but not from sincere leftists in China and abroad that tend to see through the contradictions. Even those that agree with SWCC but think the reforms went too far.
I really wish there was true nuance to discuss these issues because we could really come to some daring conclusions that could push things further along but because of the relentless anti-China narrative by the West, it’s very hard to.
u/msdos_kapital - originally from r/GenZhouOkay maybe this brings up a question that I guess has kind of been in the back of my mind for a while: what even is revisionism?
I’ve never had it really explained to me what the word is supposed to mean in the context of Marxism. What I’ve picked up by osmosis is that it is an attempt to reframe what Marxism even is, to suit whatever contemporary, idiosyncratic needs or goals of the revisionist. That is, while Marxism-Leninism is certainly a pragmatic ideology in the sense that it acknowledges the central role of historical context in determining a sensible course of action or strategy, it is still an ideology with fundamental principles such that straying from them would mean you are no longer applying Marxism-Leninism. So it would be the difference between applying Marxism-Leninism to the current historical moment and coming up with a course of action that way, versus attempting to redefine what Marxism-Leninism even is to justify whatever it is you already wanted to do. Applying the science to find an answer, versus retroactively redefining what the science even is, to justify what you were going to do anyway, is what I consider the litmus test for revisionism (and again, talking out of my ass here about a concept I have only come around to via osmosis).
To bring it back around: I would call Khrushchev a revisionist precisely because he attempt to reframe ML from a petite-bourgeois perspective in the first place.
u/ScienceSleep99 - originally from r/GenZhouReal, negative revisionism to me is the negation of Leninism, i.e. democratic centralism, DOTP, etc. China has not fundamentally give this up, albeit they’ve stretched DOTP to include the new capitalists. To be fair though they did this so that they wouldn’t form their own parties or seek political power through other means. This is in line with controlling reform.
u/msdos_kapital - originally from r/GenZhouDo you think so? They force them to join the party so as to keep them under control, but I’m not sure they consider them part of the ruling class in principle - whether they are in practice I don’t know for certain (although I would guess no).