u/Rauf123ZG - originally from r/GenZhou
Krushchev’s de-Stalinization was probably his biggest no no. Deng emphasized the importance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong thought.

Just one point I’m gonna throw out since I’m sure other people will give way better answers.

u/TiananmenTankie - originally from r/GenZhou
From what I understand, Khrushchev’s reforms moved the economy from heavy industry to light industry (consumer goods) still using central planning. Basically he wanted to copy some aspects of the US economy (like the corn belt).

Deng’s reforms were more complicated, with central planning and state-owned enterprises still being a major part of the economy, but also having those SOEs compete with cooperative enterprises and capitalist enterprises, allowing a market for consumer goods to develop with less central planning. The heights of the economy (heavy industry) would still operate under central planning. Special Economic Zones are another feature, but I don’t really know much about their specifics.

Please note this is my attempt at a summary, and I’m by no means an expert on this. I’m still learning this stuff, so if I got anything wrong, please point it out.

u/Sihplak - originally from r/GenZhou
Revisionism is not simply adapting policies and changing approach. Rather, it is distorting Marxism resulting (intentionally or not) in anti-Communist goals or outcomes.

In Khrushchev’s case, it’s more of the specific ideological line which informs the reforms taken, rather than the reforms in and of themselves. We can look at Mao’s critique here. In other words, the reforms were contextualized in a manner that benefitted bourgeois interests rather than the proletariat.

Deng’s reforms did not fall into this category. Khrushchev was a revisionist because he eschewed the notion of class dictatorship as the nature of state power, while Deng was adamant about the proletariat maintaining state power. The reforms of Khrushchev acted as a means to degrade the level of proletarian development of the USSR and instead accept bourgeois notions of “peaceful coexistence” with Capitalist powers. Deng understood that, even if maintaining positive basic relations with Capitalist powers, there would always be a continued antagonism between them, hence the idea of “hiding one’s power” (to paraphrase) that he advocated for during China’s development under his leadership.

Khrushchev’s reforms have superficial similarity to Deng’s, but not essential similarity. Agrarian reform under Deng was not to denounce collective farming, since it remained in place in various areas, but rather, to follow the Marxist-Leninist line of dialectical materialism; much of China were still peasants and were in regions difficult to maintain such large-scale collective farms in. Thus, things like the getihu system and “contracting down to the household” were done, and weren’t simply for the purpose of decentralization or so-called “efficiency”, but rather, for the very purpose of serving the people. Wan Li’s argument in favor of “contracting down to the household”, for example, involved pointing out the fact that the peasants were having trouble getting just enough to eat due to the problems of over-centralized systems. (Screenshot from page 439 of Ezra Vogel’s biography of Deng Xiaoping) This can lead us to think to a portion from Maos critique of Khrushchev linked above:

Khrushchov has substituted “material incentive” for the socialist principle, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work”. He has widened, and not narrowed, the gap between the incomes of a small minority and those of the workers, peasants and ordinary intellectuals.

When centralization and bureaucracy is not serving the people, then it objectively arises that it is not serving the Communist or Marxist line, and moreover, may be associated with some fundamental error in class analysis, such as in the case of trying to universally impose collective farming on disparate, non-proletarianized peasants, especially in mountainous areas and other areas difficult to maintain large farming systems on.

So, in short:

1. What matters are the objective consequences and theoretical basis in determining revisionist character. Those that distort, misrepresent, etc. Marxism are falling to revisionism. Such errors, opportunist attacks, etc. can be seen in ignoring or eschewing the issues of class struggle, establishing systems or institutions that aid bourgeois interests or intensify class divide, etc.

2. Khrushchev’s policies were to denounce Stalin, to deny the class nature of the state, to promote an idea of “peaceful coexistence” with antagonistic Capitalist powers, and to implement economic reforms which, while on a basic level helped improve small industry, on a systemic level had major problems such as not adequately maintaining price updates and economic liberalization without adequate state control or influence.

3. Deng’s reforms were never against the workers, but rather, premised fundamentally on the material conditions of the people. The decentralization policies allowed for small producers to become more prosperous as would those in their communities, helping with distribution of benefits to the people given the level of economic development in China. The development of private enterprises, further, were never in a context of them gaining political power, but rather, always being subjected to the central authority of the Communists, who maintained a consistent and popular line.

So, Deng was not revisionist since the basis and material outcomes of his reforms were fundamentally predicated upon a Marxist character; analysis of the material conditions of the people, ensuring the central authority of the Communists and proletariat over any private capital interests, maintaining total control of land by the CPC, etc. Khrushchev’s reforms, meanwhile, had a fundamentally erroneous position, which were, at best, not studied well enough in Marxism (if we’re generous to him and say he was a “Marxist”), or at worst, was an actual Capitalist roader.

u/EarDry9811 - originally from r/GenZhou
I’m going to get down-voted to hell for this (And it might not directly answer your question), but here it goes…

I used to hang out in ultra-leftist forums so I’m giving you an answer from a pure anti-revisionist MLM perspective. Both Khrushchev and Deng were revisionist. If you talk to an ultra, they’ll actually tell you Khrushchev was more warranted in his revisionism since he had material concerns where as Deng’s reasons for deviating from Mao’s vision were purely ideological and not material.

Also, a lot of ultra’s will look at MZT as a revisionism of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Maoism or MLM for short).

NOTE: I’m aware this is a Dengist sub so I tried my best not to offend anyone. To those who want to downvote me… just know that I’m done being an ultra and am in no way promoting this line of thought although it was how I developed my base of fundamental theory so I am biased toward it.

I just wanted to give a different perspective. I’m very open to refutations to the arguments ultras make. I never got to hear them when I hung around ultra-leftist forums because those places are pretty much echo-chambers filled with really depressing people. I just ask that you please provide some sources when making counter-arguments.

Edit: Updated the link to a non-paywalled one, thanks to u/f_l_o_u_r for the help

u/sanriver12 - originally from r/GenZhou

What were the reforms initiated by Khrushchev? How/why were the Khrushchev reforms revisionist?

https://youtu.be/MoZ0ROVlNfg?t=1830

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
[removed]

u/ScienceSleep99 - originally from r/GenZhou
I 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/abkhazian_patriot - originally from r/GenZhou
I don’t think Khrushchev was a revisionist in his time. He was a pretty dedicated communist and helped other AES a lot. However, his denunciation and lies about Stalin simply for the opportunistic reason of consolidating his power against competitors dealt a massive blow to communism’s reputation in the USSR. Gorbachev even mentioned how the secret speech affected him. Not to mention the affect it had on alienating Mao and Hoxha, who both held Stalin in high regards. I’d say Khrushchev’s lies about Stalin are why people consider Khrushchev reformist since they were so harmful to socialism.

Compared to Deng, who never denounced Mao or belittled his accomplishments. I’d say despite the capitalist reforms, people in China and in the Party still have full faith in communism and still appreciate Mao’s contribution to their country.

u/meat_tankie - originally from r/GenZhou
Everyone’s answers are better but I feel I should mention that Kruschchev’s denouncement of Stalin is a huge factor. The post-Mao CPC still “holds” the line of Stalin and of Mao pre- GPCR. There was never a full-on denouncement of Mao. This aspect of the situation is a whole sub area of study in China, and is commonly referred to as “historical nihilism”. In these studies in China, Kruschchev’s denouncement of Stalin is widely considered as a huge ideological factor in the decline of the USSR.

u/Slight-Wing-3969 - originally from r/GenZhou
If the fruit of the tree is poison, it is probably a poisonous tree. If it is not, that is less likely.