Maybe the Sino-Soviet split. It seems like it was destined to happen after Stalin died because of how shitty Khrushchev was, but still, that was an extremely harmful event for the future of humanity. Hopefully we can recover from that mistake.
Khruschev was quite funnily not a rightist but an ultraleftist when it came to many policy decisions. This meant that although he was responsible in no small part for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, he was always pretty good on international questions and oversaw a period of time wherein the Soviet Union was assisting other nations in their national liberation struggles.
China, on the other hand, had a hard right-ward shift with the beginning of their approach to peaceful coexistence in 1972. Nixon’s visit was a pivotal moment wherein one can see China’s foreign policy flipping from support for the international communist movement to actively aiding and abetting the imperial project so as to keep the U.S. and NATO off of their ass. It worked, of course, however it is difficult not to look back in hindsight regarding China’s congratulations to Pinochet or their support for Marcos against the communist rebellion, or even worse their misadventures in Afrika, and not think of them as absolutely fucking things up in their own way.
It was less “peaceful coexistence” and more “anything to spite the revisionist USSR”, including selling arms to fascists and compradors in Afrika and Asia while the USSR was busy arming communists and trying to spread world revolution that way.
I support China’s current approach to peace of course, now that there exists no alternative, and maybe history will exonerate the Chinese state of crimes committed during that period… but from what I am aware of, they were most certainly crimes - crimes against the global communist movement, even.
Wrt Khruschev, there was an inkling of my understanding of him as a historical figure obviously to be found in Grover Furr’s Khruschev Lied, something I would recommend all persons interested in the truth behind Stalin’s legacy to read.
My understanding of him as more of an ultraleftist figure comes mostly from Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny, a great attempt to dispassionately deconstruct the collapse of the Soviet Union from a communist perspective as well as an attempt to guide the movement away from similar errors in the future. They do a great job illustrating Khruschev’s strangely ultra behavior like attempting to dissolve party “bureaucracy” nationwide and disseminate power more locally (at the great expense of central government).
On Mao: I recommend the notably critical piece Mao’s China and After by Maurice Meisner for a well-rounded history of Mao’s China from before the revolution to after “capitalist restoration”. It has its issues - Meisner’s critique of “Stalinism” reeks of academic Trotskyism to me, for instance, but it was still beyond illuminating imo.
When it comes to analyses of specific misadventures most of my understanding stems from a Monthly Review article here and other such periodical sources. Whenever I’m off work I’d be more than happy to track a few of them down!
Maybe the Sino-Soviet split. It seems like it was destined to happen after Stalin died because of how shitty Khrushchev was, but still, that was an extremely harmful event for the future of humanity. Hopefully we can recover from that mistake.
There were bad things done by the Chinese side as well; it couldn’t all be chalked up to “Khruschev bad.”
It’s true. I’m just saying, I think it might have not happened if Stalin never died.
indeed
China did some really stupid shit, and obviously this is a very complex issue. But I still lay most of the fault on Khruschev and his ilk.
Both sides were wrong.
Of course, but the blame should primarily be on Khruschev imo
No.
Like what? I only learned about the cringe that Khrushchev did, what did China do
Khruschev was quite funnily not a rightist but an ultraleftist when it came to many policy decisions. This meant that although he was responsible in no small part for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, he was always pretty good on international questions and oversaw a period of time wherein the Soviet Union was assisting other nations in their national liberation struggles.
China, on the other hand, had a hard right-ward shift with the beginning of their approach to peaceful coexistence in 1972. Nixon’s visit was a pivotal moment wherein one can see China’s foreign policy flipping from support for the international communist movement to actively aiding and abetting the imperial project so as to keep the U.S. and NATO off of their ass. It worked, of course, however it is difficult not to look back in hindsight regarding China’s congratulations to Pinochet or their support for Marcos against the communist rebellion, or even worse their misadventures in Afrika, and not think of them as absolutely fucking things up in their own way.
It was less “peaceful coexistence” and more “anything to spite the revisionist USSR”, including selling arms to fascists and compradors in Afrika and Asia while the USSR was busy arming communists and trying to spread world revolution that way.
I support China’s current approach to peace of course, now that there exists no alternative, and maybe history will exonerate the Chinese state of crimes committed during that period… but from what I am aware of, they were most certainly crimes - crimes against the global communist movement, even.
Interesting, I never knew about their message to Pinochet or their semi-reactionary takes
Do you have any specific works in mind which details the things you mentioned, comrade? Specifically Khrushchev’s policies and China’s policies
Wrt Khruschev, there was an inkling of my understanding of him as a historical figure obviously to be found in Grover Furr’s Khruschev Lied, something I would recommend all persons interested in the truth behind Stalin’s legacy to read.
My understanding of him as more of an ultraleftist figure comes mostly from Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny, a great attempt to dispassionately deconstruct the collapse of the Soviet Union from a communist perspective as well as an attempt to guide the movement away from similar errors in the future. They do a great job illustrating Khruschev’s strangely ultra behavior like attempting to dissolve party “bureaucracy” nationwide and disseminate power more locally (at the great expense of central government).
On Mao: I recommend the notably critical piece Mao’s China and After by Maurice Meisner for a well-rounded history of Mao’s China from before the revolution to after “capitalist restoration”. It has its issues - Meisner’s critique of “Stalinism” reeks of academic Trotskyism to me, for instance, but it was still beyond illuminating imo.
When it comes to analyses of specific misadventures most of my understanding stems from a Monthly Review article here and other such periodical sources. Whenever I’m off work I’d be more than happy to track a few of them down!
I only read half of it, and it’s an outstanding work. Really monumental in their scope and I believe they reached the goal of their book.
Thanks for the Meisner recommendation, I’ll definitely check it out if I find it on Library Genesis or a random pdf around