The Chinese CPC labeled Khrushchev’s rapprochement with the West as “Khrushchev’s revisionism.”
Some time later, Deng initiated a rapprochement with the West. The Chinese CPC called this “opening up.”
but to equate Khrushchev and Deng is to make a clear error.
Khrushchev was a pale, insignificant figure compared to Stalin—and likely compared to Mao, too.
Someone in China once said—I don’t recall the exact words or who said it—that Mao was the matador and Khrushchev the bull.
Comparing Mao and Khrushchev is indeed inappropriate—except, perhaps, regarding their education and experience in economic management. In every other respect, Mao was a far more significant figure. A characteristic trait of Khrushchev’s during the Stalin era was that he executed orders very well but never showed initiative. That is likely how Khrushchev differed from Mao; Khrushchev was a sycophant and a careerist.
For instance, during the purges, Khrushchev ranked second in terms of the number of people on the lists of suspects he submitted to Stalin for approval. He was zealous in his efforts to curry favor with Stalin.
And then he accused Stalin of the very thing he himself did better than anyone else… )))
It’s widely acknowledged that the later Mao era and the era of the Gang of Four was filled with mistakes, and that Reform & Opening Up was a course correction. You may call this “double standards,” but learning from mistakes when practice doesn’t live up to expectations is how we grow.
We’ve finally reached a consensus, Comrade! There’s just a slight discrepancy regarding the dates. You say the late Mao era began in 1968, whereas I maintain that the late Mao era you’re referring to actually began after Stalin’s death. Let me just clarify one more thing: from 1950 onwards—after suffering four strokes—Stalin didn’t really make any major decisions in the country. A triumvirate was formed—Malenkov, Beria, and Molotov—to prepare all key state projects, while Stalin merely affixed the final approval. So, in essence, Stalin had already died back in 1950.
If we settle on a middle ground… say, 1959—would that work for you, Comrade?.. ))))
When you see that “)))”, you’ll realize you’re talking to a Russian or a Russian speaker.
Okay, in that case, let’s talk about humor.
Let’s talk about folklore. Folklore isn’t about the state; it’s about the people. Folklore reflects the collective mindset of the people—I think you’d agree with that… Vox populi, vox Dei.
Here’s a Soviet-era joke; these few lines capture the whole essence:
“To launch a satellite, the Chinese formed a human pyramid a thousand stories high, but it collapsed because the guy on the three-hundred-and-seventeenth floor hadn’t properly mastered Mao’s Little Red Book.”
You’re an intelligent person, so you surely understand that my views were formed back in early childhood. It’s something ingrained at a subconscious level.
I understand and can empathize with your views, I just have disagreements on certain aspects. These of course are colored by both of our upbringings, you within the Soviet Union and me entirely disconnected from socialism.
I very often fill gaps in my theoretical knowledge with personal experience—please forgive me for that!
I would also like to note that the interpretation of Marx’s theory in the USSR was somewhat simplified. For instance, the USSR acknowledged the existence of a primitive communal system but not the “Asiatic mode of production.” I only heard about the latter recently. I would like to highlight this aspect; perhaps the key to what is currently happening in China lies there.
Given that my knowledge of Marx’s theory is superficial—and considering that Marx did not outline a precise model for constructing socialism (his work was largely a theoretical analysis of capitalism and its consequences)—it is worth noting that philosophy never sets concrete tasks for the individual.
Regarding your view of Marx’s philosophy, I can also point out an inaccuracy. You state that Marx envisioned the construction of socialism only within the context of developed capitalism, based on highly advanced productive forces.
However, that is not entirely the case. In a letter to Vera Zasulich (dated March 8, 1881),
Karl Marx stated that Russia could bypass the painful stage of capitalism. He emphasized that his theory was not a universal historical prescription and that the Russian peasant commune could, under certain conditions, become the nucleus of socialist development. Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.
The bottom line is this: Lenin and Trotsky supported the NEP, whereas Stalin sided with “Zasulich.” Stalin turned out to be entirely right, and he did not deviate from Marx’s theory by even a millimeter.
No, that’s not at all what I mean, Comrade!
I am talking about double standards:
The Chinese CPC labeled Khrushchev’s rapprochement with the West as “Khrushchev’s revisionism.”
Some time later, Deng initiated a rapprochement with the West. The Chinese CPC called this “opening up.”
Khrushchev was a pale, insignificant figure compared to Stalin—and likely compared to Mao, too.
Someone in China once said—I don’t recall the exact words or who said it—that Mao was the matador and Khrushchev the bull.
Comparing Mao and Khrushchev is indeed inappropriate—except, perhaps, regarding their education and experience in economic management. In every other respect, Mao was a far more significant figure. A characteristic trait of Khrushchev’s during the Stalin era was that he executed orders very well but never showed initiative. That is likely how Khrushchev differed from Mao; Khrushchev was a sycophant and a careerist.
For instance, during the purges, Khrushchev ranked second in terms of the number of people on the lists of suspects he submitted to Stalin for approval. He was zealous in his efforts to curry favor with Stalin.
And then he accused Stalin of the very thing he himself did better than anyone else… )))
It’s widely acknowledged that the later Mao era and the era of the Gang of Four was filled with mistakes, and that Reform & Opening Up was a course correction. You may call this “double standards,” but learning from mistakes when practice doesn’t live up to expectations is how we grow.
We’ve finally reached a consensus, Comrade! There’s just a slight discrepancy regarding the dates. You say the late Mao era began in 1968, whereas I maintain that the late Mao era you’re referring to actually began after Stalin’s death. Let me just clarify one more thing: from 1950 onwards—after suffering four strokes—Stalin didn’t really make any major decisions in the country. A triumvirate was formed—Malenkov, Beria, and Molotov—to prepare all key state projects, while Stalin merely affixed the final approval. So, in essence, Stalin had already died back in 1950.
If we settle on a middle ground… say, 1959—would that work for you, Comrade?.. ))))
I don’t think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn’t put a hard date on it.
Comrade, just so you know: if I use “)))”, it means I’m joking.
Of course, one shouldn’t date events that way.
I wanted to highlight the fact that you agreed with me on at least one thing!)))
I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it.
When you see that “)))”, you’ll realize you’re talking to a Russian or a Russian speaker.
Okay, in that case, let’s talk about humor.
Let’s talk about folklore. Folklore isn’t about the state; it’s about the people. Folklore reflects the collective mindset of the people—I think you’d agree with that… Vox populi, vox Dei.
Here’s a Soviet-era joke; these few lines capture the whole essence:
“To launch a satellite, the Chinese formed a human pyramid a thousand stories high, but it collapsed because the guy on the three-hundred-and-seventeenth floor hadn’t properly mastered Mao’s Little Red Book.”
You’re an intelligent person, so you surely understand that my views were formed back in early childhood. It’s something ingrained at a subconscious level.
So, please forgive me for my past stubbornness.
I understand and can empathize with your views, I just have disagreements on certain aspects. These of course are colored by both of our upbringings, you within the Soviet Union and me entirely disconnected from socialism.
I very often fill gaps in my theoretical knowledge with personal experience—please forgive me for that!
I would also like to note that the interpretation of Marx’s theory in the USSR was somewhat simplified. For instance, the USSR acknowledged the existence of a primitive communal system but not the “Asiatic mode of production.” I only heard about the latter recently. I would like to highlight this aspect; perhaps the key to what is currently happening in China lies there.
Given that my knowledge of Marx’s theory is superficial—and considering that Marx did not outline a precise model for constructing socialism (his work was largely a theoretical analysis of capitalism and its consequences)—it is worth noting that philosophy never sets concrete tasks for the individual.
Regarding your view of Marx’s philosophy, I can also point out an inaccuracy. You state that Marx envisioned the construction of socialism only within the context of developed capitalism, based on highly advanced productive forces.
However, that is not entirely the case. In a letter to Vera Zasulich (dated March 8, 1881),
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Засулич,_Вера_Ивановна
Karl Marx stated that Russia could bypass the painful stage of capitalism. He emphasized that his theory was not a universal historical prescription and that the Russian peasant commune could, under certain conditions, become the nucleus of socialist development. Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.
The bottom line is this: Lenin and Trotsky supported the NEP, whereas Stalin sided with “Zasulich.” Stalin turned out to be entirely right, and he did not deviate from Marx’s theory by even a millimeter.