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.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    562·
    3 months ago

    As Deng said in an interview:

    Khrushchev only ever brought pain to the Chinese people. Stalin, on the other hand, did some good for us. After the founding of the People’s Republic, he helped us to build up an industrial complex that is still the foundation of the Chinese economy. He didn’t help us for free — fine, we had to pay him — but he helped us. And, when Khrushchev came to power, everything changed. Khrushchev broke all the agreements between China and the Soviet Union, all the contracts that had been signed under Stalin — hundreds of contracts.

    https://redsails.org/deng-and-fallaci/

    By my understanding, this was in large part because Khrushchev wanted to put Soviet military bases in the PRC and the latter refused.

    • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      35·
      3 months ago

      Interviews like this make me think that excellent journalism is effectively dead in our times. We are never gonna get a cross-cultural dialogue this now.

    • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
      9·
      3 months ago

      Tbf there was also lots of chauvinism from the USSR towards the PRC, starting with the liberation of Manchuria from the Japanese. The seeds of the split were planted early.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        281·
        3 months ago

        idk, I personally think he rather lost his right to that with all the lying in the Secret Speech, which was then cover for slaughtering Stalin’s supporters in the political establishment, but you can do what you like, of course

      • Che's Motorcycle@lemmygrad.ml
        81·
        3 months ago

        I’ve read most of your comments, and I get a really strange feeling from them. Almost like “I’m not going to bother reading Kruschev myself, but you all are WRONG because you’ve never read him”.

        As an ML community, we’re committed to historical materialism (you can see an excellent overview of it from Marx here: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism). What I take from that is we have can have a deeper understanding of history than “mere” historians, who still typically lack any understanding of class or political economy.

        And we especially don’t need to read all the “Great Men” who “made things happen”. We know that history is a process of class struggle, and understand its outcomes as such

        • Che's Motorcycle@lemmygrad.ml
          91·
          3 months ago

          And I would add that there’s especially little value in studying the far right if our goal is to understand what they want.

          Sartre put it best:

          Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

          • Makan@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            13·
            3 months ago

            I liked that you hid your reply to me behind another comment. Classy.

            I like how you also quote an anti-communist in bad faith.

            Never change.

        • Makan@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          12·
          3 months ago

          Not at all.

          I’m friends with Ismail and he got me interested in reading the other side of the story.

          “I’ve read most of your comments, and I get a really strange feeling from them. Almost like “I’m not going to bother reading Kruschev myself, but you all are WRONG because you’ve never read him”.”

          Vibes aren’t research.

          No investigation, no right to speak!

        • Makan@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          11·
          3 months ago

          Yes, this is what I’m getting at.

          But the mods have spoken. Let’s move on.