China’s argument for why the split needed to happen is because the USSR was liberalizing and revisioning the revolution to a point that it was no longer within the confines of Marxism-Leninism. And if we look at the USSR at the time, China wasn’t wrong to say that.
I think the split was a mistake that both republics should have avoided, the USSR may have been stronger against the counter-revolution that happened in the early 90’s if the two powers kept closer relations, but I won’t refute the choices of the past too loudly. But if I had to pick a side, China was right.
The split was a huge mistake, and I think that Khrushchev very much deserves the blame for it. It wasn’t just the fact that USSR was liberalizing, but the denunciation of Stalin that really drove China away from USSR. It’s also worth noting that China ended up liberalizing in the end as well during Deng reforms, so part of it was just bad timing on the part of USSR. If a better leader was in charge, then USSR could’ve likely made a lot of the same reforms without alienating China in the process.
The two good things Kruschev did was put down the uprising in Hungary, and call for demobilisation of nuclear weapons with the US (which the US kept refusing).
As soon as Stalin died and he was elected Premier, he disavowed everything Stalin did – the man who brought the union through WW2 – and it’s because of him that people today still think Stalin was a monster. Most of the outlandish myths you’ll hear about Stalin came from Kruschev’s so-called secret speech, which he made to the assembly. There’s also some evidence that Kruschev was the one who built Stalin’s cult of personality (which Stalin was opposed to), which he then used to attack him after his death.
But obviously the problems of the USSR began before Kruschev was elected, exactly because he was elected by the cabinet in the first place. In China, this topic (the fall and dissolution of the USSR) is a masters program. There’s a lot to cover, and China learned from the USSR’s mistakes to avoid putting revisionists in power. The USSR had to contend with many restrictions: the civil war forced them to bring back bourgeois and noble officers of the Tsarist army. Tsarist Russia was a mostly agrarian country where most labour was done by hand, prior to the revolution. They had to industrialise in a decade. WW2 killed 20 million Russians alone, forcing them to bring back people they had purged from the party to jobs with authority (teachers, police…).
After Kruschev, there was little hope for the USSR to rectify their path. He had an indirect hand in bringing it down, and for that we can never forgive him. The PRC made some bad decisions in the 20th century, but this wasn’t one of them.
Brezhnev was one letter in a whole chapter. He’s known as the “leader who didn’t do anything” and it’s a bit of an exaggeration, but he kinda just coasted by between Kruschev and Gorbachev.
Conversely, he also didn’t do anything to stop revisionism in the party. But I doubt he could have. By that time the party had been infiltrated by revisionists under Krushev (remember, there’s a reason the CPSU thought Krushev would make a good Secretary General after Stalin). It was probably too late.
Starting with how Stalin himself was far from wanting to elevate himself to the status of a god. He was described as a modest and simple man by those who knew him, always putting the party first and acting only as an intermediary.
And in The Initiators of the `Cult’, the article goes on to describe who participated into creating this “cult” and why. Krushev wasn’t alone, of course, but he was undoubtedly an instrumental part of it as he was elected General Secretary after Stalin.
I’m not going to say Kruschev was playing 4D chess (I don’t know enough to say that, maybe other people would) and that he hatched a plan to put the blame of everything bad that happened in the USSR on Stalin so he could break away from a disciplined ML governance to… whatever it is Kruschev did to the USSR… but the article does paint a very damning picture of Kruschev’s and his accomplices’ ploys.
Certainly I know which of the two has left a lasting impression on the world, and which was decried as a revisionist by most if not all disciplined ML parties.
China’s argument for why the split needed to happen is because the USSR was liberalizing and revisioning the revolution to a point that it was no longer within the confines of Marxism-Leninism. And if we look at the USSR at the time, China wasn’t wrong to say that.
I think the split was a mistake that both republics should have avoided, the USSR may have been stronger against the counter-revolution that happened in the early 90’s if the two powers kept closer relations, but I won’t refute the choices of the past too loudly. But if I had to pick a side, China was right.
The split was a huge mistake, and I think that Khrushchev very much deserves the blame for it. It wasn’t just the fact that USSR was liberalizing, but the denunciation of Stalin that really drove China away from USSR. It’s also worth noting that China ended up liberalizing in the end as well during Deng reforms, so part of it was just bad timing on the part of USSR. If a better leader was in charge, then USSR could’ve likely made a lot of the same reforms without alienating China in the process.
Wait, so you think Hruŝev’s USSR was revisionist?
The two good things Kruschev did was put down the uprising in Hungary, and call for demobilisation of nuclear weapons with the US (which the US kept refusing).
As soon as Stalin died and he was elected Premier, he disavowed everything Stalin did – the man who brought the union through WW2 – and it’s because of him that people today still think Stalin was a monster. Most of the outlandish myths you’ll hear about Stalin came from Kruschev’s so-called secret speech, which he made to the assembly. There’s also some evidence that Kruschev was the one who built Stalin’s cult of personality (which Stalin was opposed to), which he then used to attack him after his death.
But obviously the problems of the USSR began before Kruschev was elected, exactly because he was elected by the cabinet in the first place. In China, this topic (the fall and dissolution of the USSR) is a masters program. There’s a lot to cover, and China learned from the USSR’s mistakes to avoid putting revisionists in power. The USSR had to contend with many restrictions: the civil war forced them to bring back bourgeois and noble officers of the Tsarist army. Tsarist Russia was a mostly agrarian country where most labour was done by hand, prior to the revolution. They had to industrialise in a decade. WW2 killed 20 million Russians alone, forcing them to bring back people they had purged from the party to jobs with authority (teachers, police…).
After Kruschev, there was little hope for the USSR to rectify their path. He had an indirect hand in bringing it down, and for that we can never forgive him. The PRC made some bad decisions in the 20th century, but this wasn’t one of them.
And Brežnev?
Brezhnev was one letter in a whole chapter. He’s known as the “leader who didn’t do anything” and it’s a bit of an exaggeration, but he kinda just coasted by between Kruschev and Gorbachev.
Conversely, he also didn’t do anything to stop revisionism in the party. But I doubt he could have. By that time the party had been infiltrated by revisionists under Krushev (remember, there’s a reason the CPSU thought Krushev would make a good Secretary General after Stalin). It was probably too late.
Could you please elaborate about Khrushchev building Stalin’s personality cult?
I can send you this article which goes into it: https://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm
Starting with how Stalin himself was far from wanting to elevate himself to the status of a god. He was described as a modest and simple man by those who knew him, always putting the party first and acting only as an intermediary.
And in The Initiators of the `Cult’, the article goes on to describe who participated into creating this “cult” and why. Krushev wasn’t alone, of course, but he was undoubtedly an instrumental part of it as he was elected General Secretary after Stalin.
I’m not going to say Kruschev was playing 4D chess (I don’t know enough to say that, maybe other people would) and that he hatched a plan to put the blame of everything bad that happened in the USSR on Stalin so he could break away from a disciplined ML governance to… whatever it is Kruschev did to the USSR… but the article does paint a very damning picture of Kruschev’s and his accomplices’ ploys.
Certainly I know which of the two has left a lasting impression on the world, and which was decried as a revisionist by most if not all disciplined ML parties.
Thank you very much for the article.
I only thought Gorbačëv is the revisionist