How have they maintained their ideological purity so well, even after reform and opening up? How come the CPSU let figures like Khruschev slip in through the cracks?
How have they maintained their ideological purity so well, even after reform and opening up? How come the CPSU let figures like Khruschev slip in through the cracks?
I agree with much of what you said here.
That said, honestly, I don’t know what to believe in this case.
I think, if anyone has pointers on what to read here, that would be much appreciated. I’ve read some books from the “CultRev point-of-view” (that is, books that defend the CultRev in China) but the problem is that I’ve never quite read why the CultRev was wrong and that makes me a bit unsure of how to approach this topic: I don’t know the other side of the story and, therefore, I don’t know if the CultRev proponents’ arguments are deficient or not and how they compare to the critics of it.
That being said, I do have some idea of how Chinese people may view the CultRev and that is that it was “useless” and caused “needless chaos.”
I think I’m going to lean toward that CultRev being necessary for “Reform and Opening Up,” as is sometimes the interpretation; without that commitment to communism, Reform and Opening Up could’ve gone awry…
I have nothing to add. I think we’re pretty much on the same level here. I also have a lot to learn still.
I’ve only been an ML for… maybe 5 years? 6? 7? And honestly, some communists I know have been that for 50 or 60.
And I realized that there is a lot I don’t know beyond the “classics” and some of my special interests in ML.
I mean, there’s what’s on paper and then there’s what is yet to be discovered or ascertained.
Honestly, like I said, I do… think that the CultRev was probably necessary. In fact, I think it was, issues with it aside. Could you imagine if China was not socialist nowadays? All the other AES nations would fold, tbh…