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.

  • Makan ☭ CPUSA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The Sino-Soviet split was caused by both sides.

    Don’t let others tell you otherwise.

    People are just repeating Grover Furr ad nauseum in this and other writers.

    • LeniX
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The Sino-Soviet split was caused by both sides.

      Yeah, that doesn’t mean both sides were equally responsible, though. You could say the Chinese could have tried doing some rapprochement (and evidently they did in the late 70s), and, you know, NOT helping the imperialists in Afghanistan, but at least when it came to Khrushchev they had a point.

      • Makan ☭ CPUSA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        They had no point when it came to Khruschev.

        They should’ve worked with the Soviet Union diplomatically in order to combat American imperialism, which was the greater evil. The Soviet Union post-1956 was not imperialist, objectively speaking. So the PRC had no point and had to change its economic policy even after the CultRev.

        • LeniX
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Except that the course Khrushchev took ultimately paved the way for capitalist restoration and disintegration of the USSR. Not to mention that, as others pointed out, the way he came to power was something akin to a coup d’etat. And it’s not like I’m blindly defending Mao, but at the end of the day you always have to consider the totality of circumstances under which a given decision is being made.

          • Makan ☭ CPUSA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 month ago

            The problems of capitalist restoration extend back to the Russian Revolution, not just Khruschev.

            • LeniX
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Sure. That doesn’t mean he’s suddenly absolved of all responsibility. Criticism towards him is valid and necessary, just like criticism towards any leader - Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, whoever

              • Makan ☭ CPUSA
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 month ago

                I didn’t say he was suddenly absolved of all responsibility.

                • LeniX
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  how did Khrushchev f*ck up?

                  The title of the post. When I say they had a point when it came to him, I am referring to his massive mistakes on all fronts. History proved the Chinese right. Yes, maybe they should have been more pragmatic, maybe they did overreact, that is not the point. The point is - he did fuck up, big time, and Mao correctly pointed out his mistakes.

                  • Makan ☭ CPUSA
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    “The title of the post.”

                    So? I didn’t say Khruschev didn’t do anything wrong.

                    Also, this was Late Mao so I don’t care.

              • Makan ☭ CPUSA
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Much of the population was still quite conservative and, for example, when the Soviet Union incorporated many of the Eastern European countries, it was incorporating many of the problems from those regions as well, including a strong ultra-right element.

                Edit: A lot of these people would appear in government to.

    • gueybana [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      I seriously cannot believe all the blame is pinned on the Soviets in every single comment when you could say China hung the USSR out to dry in every ideological battle ever

      • Makan ☭ CPUSA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I think that’s sort-of besides the point, though I respect what you’re trying to say.