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.
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?