you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 5 months ago (25 children)

Khrushchev’s venom was correctly called out by Mao.

Like you, I also detest Khrushchev; however, as far as China is concerned, Khrushchev did nothing detrimental—in fact, he continued Stalin's foreign policy course regarding that country.

And here is something that might surprise you: Stalin and Mao never actually shared a warm relationship. Stalin used to refer to Mao as a "radish"—red on the outside (a communist), but white on the inside (a capitalist).

but there’s good reason why Khrushchev’s actions enabled Gorbachev’s, which enabled Yeltsin’s.

Yes, I completely agree with you here. Stalin's death was the beginning of the end for the USSR.

Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world’s factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further.

Once again, Comrade: The factories where this "copying" took place were built using Western capital. The Western owners were undoubtedly keen to ensure those factories generated a profit, so they dispatched their own specialists to help their Chinese comrades master the technologies more quickly; equipment and machinery were provided as well.

There is no miracle here, Comrade. I played football as a child, and back then, the Germans built an Adidas factory in Moscow. I used to buy Moscow-made Adidas boots; they were indistinguishable from the originals—except that they cost several times less.

Just imagine: if there had been thousands of such factories—as there are in China—what would have happened then? Moscow-made Adidas would have completely displaced German Adidas. Does that not remind you of anything?

The only catch is that, in the USSR, you could count the number of Western-built factories on the fingers of one hand...

As for the idea of ​​simply copying something without developing it further... Have you heard about the Korean War, where American pilots suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Soviet airmen? The ratio was something like one to ten—I don't recall the exact figures.

The whole secret lies in the fact that the aircraft flown by the Soviet pilots were copies of American designs—except that, in their version, the Russians altered the wing angle. And the Russians won.

All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be.

Comrade, I feel a certain sense of embarrassment before you. This is the first time I have ever heard an American speak like this.

I am pleased to hear that. When I detect a certain note of regret... I truly hope it is sincere!

What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath.

You can see that a cornered beast will fight to the bitter end! A cornered beast is capable of anything!

Comrade, it is one thing to merely observe, but quite another to be right in the epicenter. I am watching Russia—quite literally—through a pair of naval binoculars.

If I were to set up a drum, grab a spyglass, put on a tricorn hat, and perch myself on that drum—well, I could easily pass for Napoleon... )))

For those of us here, all these death throes... they reverberate back to us later with excruciating pain. Just now, Ukraine struck a dormitory; many teenagers were killed. And the retaliation will come flying back—right down onto our heads...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (24 children)

    I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing.

    As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (23 children)

    I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China’s Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west.

    I understand everything you’re saying, but that’s not what I’m getting at. If the USSR had received the same level of Western investment back then—the kind that was poured into China—it wouldn’t have been any worse off; in fact, to be more precise, the USSR would have absolutely skyrocketed.

    As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America.

    I am more concerned about European globalists right now—because I am not from Iran, but from Kharkiv.

    And those scumbags are constantly provoking... harder and harder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (22 children)

    One could say that the reason the Soviets could not get the same western investment is because of the differences between the soviet system and the Chinese system. This is why it's best not to look at socialism like a static formula, but a science with options and tradeoffs. China's decision came with good and bad, the soviet decision came with good and bad, the correct decision is only truly identifiable in hindsight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    One could say that the reason the Soviets could not get the same western investment is because of the differences between the soviet system and the Chinese system.

    Specifically for our conversation, I would like to briefly introduce you—in outline form—to the contents of Yuri Nikolayevich Zhukov’s book, The Flip Side of NEP (Обратная Сторона НЭПа):

    Crisis Phenomena: According to the researcher, the partial return to market mechanisms did not lead to the long-awaited economic boom; instead, it triggered a protracted economic crisis.

    Political Struggle: The transition to the NEP (New Economic Policy) exacerbated latent conflicts within the USSR’s party elite (during the 1923–1925 period), resulting in a fierce struggle for power.

    Social Stratification: Economic liberalization led to the rapid enrichment of a narrow social stratum—the "NEPmen"—a situation that stood in stark contrast to the dire plight of the majority of workers and peasants.

    As you can see, there exists a radically different perspective on the events of that era. Zhukov is an archivist; his work relies primarily on archival documents. In his books, every claim is substantiated by the figures and statistical indicators of those years, which form the core of the economic analysis within his work. The political struggle is evidenced in the minutes of party meetings, while social stratification is clearly visible in criminal police reports. One such report, for instance, describes the formation of a student gang in Moscow that specialized in robbing NEPmen. A great number of such motley gangs sprang up, triggering a rampant surge in crime.

    Indeed, we know that between 1919 and 1921, "War Communism" was implemented at the behest of Trotsky. Both Trotsky and Lenin indulged in fantasies of a global revolution; they fully expected that a wave of socialist revolutions would erupt across Europe at any moment, and that the Red Army would immediately rush to their aid. Consequently, the army was effectively transformed into a "labor army."

    It was a truly terrible time for the workers and peasants. Soldiers were not demobilized from the army; instead, they remained under barracks conditions, working in factories and receiving no wages—only food and clothing. Yet, even these basic necessities the state was unable to provide in sufficient quantities. As the situation deteriorated, unrest and strikes began to erupt in the factories; workers refused to work. Measures had to be taken. To breathe some fresh life into the economy, War Communism was abolished and the NEP was introduced; however, as it turned out, this dawn was short-lived. As for the notion that the NEP was actually effective in the USSR—that was a myth later inflated by Gorbachev in order to push through his own hare-brained ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (20 children)

    Let's set everything else aside for a moment and focus solely on the construction of socialism via the "Stalinist path." We will take into account all the errors, miscalculations, and successes involved.

    How did Stalin attract investment? Stalin sold priceless paintings from the state-owned Hermitage Museum, thereby effectively bribing American officials and tycoons. Capitalizing on the Weimar Republic's diplomatic isolation, he established trade relations with them. Raw materials were shipped to the Weimar Republic, while technology, equipment, machinery, and machine tools flowed back in return. At that time, Germany was a technologically advanced nation. However, problems arose in the 1930s; Hitler rose to power, and relations between the USSR and Germany were severed. Simultaneously, an unprecedented economic crisis struck. Trade relations with Europe and the USA were all but reduced to zero. As always, the peasants ended up bearing the brunt of the consequences. The 1930s were an incredibly difficult period for the peasantry. There were also miscalculations regarding collectivization—specifically, those that followed the failure of the communes. In case you weren't aware, prior to collectivization, there had been communes established in the villages. That particular approach failed miserably, sparking intense resentment among the peasants. Yet Mao—for some inexplicable reason—chose to emphasize communes rather than kolkhozes (collective farms) during his "Great Leap Forward," completely disregarding Stalin's prior experience.

    And do not forget that, running parallel to the processes of collectivization and industrialization, a "Cultural Revolution" was taking place within the USSR. And believe me, Comrade: had Mao orchestrated something similar, China would not have suffered from such a dire shortage of agricultural specialists.

    After Mao botched the industrialization, collectivization, and "Cultural Revolution"—and subsequently fell out with the USSR—China was forced to go to the West with cap in hand, begging for aid. Had it not been for American assistance back then, China would have simply collapsed!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    Stalin also made errors and mistakes in socialist construction. You are overweighting Mao's mistakes and ignoring the successes under Mao, the establishment and solidification of socialism in China. The modern CPC has learned from both the successes and mistakes of both Stalin and Mao, while the CPSU decayed. As much as I wish the USSR had not dissolved, it did, and we are in the aftermath of such a tragedy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (18 children)

    Stalin also made errors and mistakes in socialist construction.

    I'm not arguing.

    You are overweighting Mao’s mistakes and ignoring the successes under Mao

    I can offer my perspective from where I stand—which, as always, is a bit different...

    You overestimate Mao’s achievements while underestimating the assistance provided by the USSR.

    You always focus on Mao’s post-war accomplishments, yet you fail to mention his contributions during the wars against Japan and in the Civil War—periods when he truly demonstrated the full extent of his capabilities, thereby providing the impetus for the unification of China. This is, undeniably, a monumental achievement on his part. His shortcomings and lack of foresight, however, lay in his incompetence regarding economic theory, as well as his subsequent handling of industrial and agrarian policies.

    The abrupt pivot toward the West was not a continuation of Mao’s strategy, but rather a forced measure—a desperate attempt to rescue an economy that had reached a complete dead end. After all, selling one’s soul to the devil is always the very last resort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (17 children)

    I am not undervaluing Mao's work in liberation, on that front I agree. I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao's economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up. The Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy, indeed, but China nevertheless is carrying the banner of socialism forward today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (16 children)

    I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao’s economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up.

    A comrade forwarded this video to me today.

    The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.

    I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply took advantage of the situation.

    A comrade forwarded me this video today.

    The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.

    I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply capitalized on the situation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xVVyS7NtB5k

    And this is not the first time I have pointed out your double standards and contradictions!

    Why won't you listen to me?

    I repeat once again:

    The criticism of Joseph Stalin—specifically, of his cult of personality—contained in Khrushchev’s report at the conclusion of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, along with the new Soviet course toward economic development under a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations, provoked Mao Zedong’s displeasure, as he viewed them as running counter to the concept of the "Leninist sword" and to communist ideology as a whole.

    By the way, read this too: the CIA had a hand in it as well—the bastards!

    https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000242669.pdf

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (15 children)

    I'm aware that the US Empire took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split. As I said, it was a tragedy, and a mistake. However, this does not mean China's socialism is invalid or wrong. I do not see any double standards on my part, can you explain quite clearly what they are? I value both Stalin and Mao greatly. Both made mistakes, but both were critical for the establishment of socialism.

    Later Mao made more mistakes than earlier Mao. This is why the Gang of Four took power, causing all manner of confusion, and resulted in Deng Xiaoping courses correcting. Reform and Opening Up ultimately was done in a manner that the US thought they could exploit, but in reality the CPC maintained control and the US Empire's plans are failing. This is why the cold war against China is ramping up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (14 children)

    I do not see any double standards on my part, can you explain quite clearly what they are?

    Yes, of course I can explain.

    As we know: The primary cause of the rift between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev lay in the policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations—a course Khrushchev proclaimed at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. Mao Zedong viewed this policy as a departure from Marxism-Leninism and a betrayal of the global revolution, which led to deep ideological and geopolitical disagreements.

    As we know: Deng adopted a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with the West in the 1970s...

    Do you not see the contradiction here, Comrade? If that is the case, then China and the USSR ought to reconcile, since their policies are identical. As we recall, the 1970s saw a period of "détente" between the USSR and the USA.

    Incidentally, it was when Khrushchev pivoted toward the West that the USSR became hooked on the "oil needle"—a dependency it still hasn't managed to kick...

    The monetary reform of 1961 was carried out in order to peg the ruble to the dollar.

    Later Mao made more mistakes than earlier Mao.

    I would be very surprised, Comrade, if you said otherwise.

    I met a Chinese guy on Reddit whose father fled to the U.S. during the Cultural Revolution.

    But it probably wasn't any worse—because fewer people actually died during the Cultural Revolution; the events there consisted mostly of unprecedented repression.

    This is why the Gang of Four took power

    I think the "Gang of Four" affair was Deng clearing his own path to power. The internal political struggle at the time was extremely fierce.

    Did you see the news footage of that trial?

    There was one woman among the defendants—I don't recall her name, though she was a close associate of Mao—and for some reason, I felt sorry for her. When she delivered her final statement in court, it struck me that only a true communist facing execution could speak like that...

    Reform and Opening Up ultimately was done in a manner that the US thought they could exploit, but in reality the CPC maintained control and the US Empire’s plans are failing. This is why the cold war against China is ramping up.

    Let's put it this way: China outmaneuvered the U.S. The U.S. underestimated China's strength. This is what we have come to call the "Chinese Miracle." Americans are pragmatists; they don't believe in miracles... :))))

    It is just like how the West slept on the USSR back in the 1930s... they, too, refused to believe in a miracle at the time.

    However, I believe that comparing these two miracles is somewhat inappropriate. As you rightly noted, the conditions under which these goals were achieved were quite different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    I believe you are mistaken, comrade. I am not actually Nikita Khrushchev nor am I Mao Zedong. Any "double-standard" you see with Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up as a result of problems with the late Mao era and the Gang of Four must be considered from that context, and not merely from one aspect of Mao's critique of Khrushchev's policy before the Gang of Four era.

    Regarding the Gang of Four, they were largely an extension of Mao's incorrect lines towards the end of his life, without most of his positive lines. Deng Xiaoping corrected the course for the new era of development, having inherited a basically industrialized economy but with widespread poverty and backwards technology.

    As for China outmaneuvering the west, I agree. This is pretty plainly what happened, despite what the west thought they could get away with, China maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat and maintained political control in the socialist market economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (12 children)

    Any “double-standard” you see with Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up as a result of problems with the late Mao era

    You’ve probably misunderstood me again, Comrade.

    What you call Deng Xiaoping’s "openness," Mao called Khrushchev’s "revisionism."

    Deng did exactly what Khrushchev had attempted to do—only later. Or do you consider it a mistake on Mao’s part that he didn’t beat Khrushchev to the punch and establish relations with the West first?

    Regarding the Gang of Four, they were largely an extension of Mao’s incorrect lines towards the end of his life, without most of his positive lines. Deng Xiaoping corrected the course for the new era of development, having inherited a basically industrialized economy but with widespread poverty and backwards technology.

    I don't understand why you—a man with the mindset of a dialectical materialist—are always prone to idealizing things. It is still a Party, and the same internal Party struggle is at play.

    Let me tell you how it all unfolded in the USSR. When Gorbachev came to power and launched Perestroika, a great many members of the Central Committee were opposed to it. This was the so-called "Old Guard"—or, if you prefer, you could call them the "Gang of Four." These were Brezhnev's people. Within a very short timeframe—and very quietly—these individuals were either removed from their posts or sidelined for one reason or another; some were compromised and forced to step down. It wasn't as loud, brutal, or theatrical as the affair involving the original "Gang of Four," but the result was the same: the entire Old Guard—that "Gang of Four"—simply dissolved into the ether of existence...

    To suggest that the "Great Helmsman" Deng was thinking about the people or about reforms back then—much as Gorbachev supposedly was during Perestroika while simultaneously purging his rivals—is, at the very least, naive, Comrade! At that time, they were thinking about one thing and one thing only: power.

    And I recently told you something untrue. Gorbachev did have a plan. It was the "Acceleration" plan—a concept originally conceived by Andropov. Andropov had entrusted its development to three individuals: Ryzhkov, Gorbachev, and... well, I’ve forgotten the third one. This "Acceleration" plan concerned exclusively economic reforms—there were absolutely no political or ideological components to it!

    Over the course of two years—largely thanks to Ryzhkov—the plan was fully developed, and in 1985, Gorbachev officially launched it. He immediately presented it during the very first plenary session of the Central Committee. It was Andropov’s "Acceleration" plan.

    It was a plan for economic reforms!

    Then, in 1987—when Perestroika truly began (that is, when the term Perestroika first started appearing in the newspapers)—the scope of the reforms expanded to encompass not only economic matters but also state-level and ideological issues. Ryzhkov opposed this expansion and subsequently resigned. This comes from the memoirs of Ryzhkov himself, who passed away not long ago.

    Yakovlev—who at the time served as the USSR's chief ideologue—bears the entire blame. It was he who persuaded Gorbachev to undertake ideological reform. This was a fatal error!

    However, to this day, I still cannot determine whether or not the CIA had a hand in it.

    This is because Yakovlev spent a great deal of time working at the Soviet Embassy in Canada. Gorbachev, too, traveled there at Yakovlev's invitation—long before he became president. Yakovlev arranged a meeting between Gorbachev and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau—presumably, the modern-day Trudeau is his son or grandson. While in Canada, Gorbachev also met with representatives from the United States. This took place in the early 1980s. It would be fascinating to know what exactly they discussed there. I do not rule out the possibility that Yakovlev was working for the CIA—perhaps even unwittingly.

    As for China outmaneuvering the west, I agree. This is pretty plainly what happened, despite what the west thought they could get away with, China maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat and maintained political control in the socialist market economy.

    Yes, I agree that retaining political control is to Mao's credit, as he built the foundation of the state apparatus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

    Deng did not do what Khrushchev did, for the following key reasons:

    1. Deng upheld Stalin and Mao, refusing to create a historical nihilism among the people.

    2. Deng did not state that class struggle was over, but instead that it was alive and well, and must be constantly watched out for.

    3. Deng turned a largely backwards economy into a more progressive form, Khrushchev weakened a more advanced economy into a more regressive one.

    I appreciate the added background detail for the Soviet perspective, but to equate Khrushchev and Deng is to make a clear error.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

    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."

    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... )))

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    It’s widely acknowledged that the later Mao

    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?... ))))

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    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!)))

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    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/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto, Marx and Engels say that the Russian commune could “pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership” only if the Russian Revolution (which he saw as inevitable, though it was not inevitable that it would "take[] place in time" (first draft of letter to Zasulich), and in the Letter to Otecestvenniye Zapisky he says that if Russia continues on its path, it will have lost this chance to skip the phase of capitalist development) is supported by wider revolution in the West. Otherwise, the Russian commune “must [] first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West.”

    There’s zero approval by Marx here for the notion of skipping the phase of private production/property in one country without a wider revolution.

    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.

    No he didn’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    You misinterpret Marx's statement. I'm fully aware of Marx's views on the Russian commune movement, the problem is that you assume the Soviet model is what Marx was referring to, and that a more classically Marxist understanding of socialism was not what he meant. Marx was fairly explicit in what a socialist state would be, one where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. The Russian peasantry could have bypassed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and went straight to a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but they would not be able to avoid the problem of transitioning small ownership to large, industrialized ownership without the aid of markets.

    The fact of the matter is that private property existed de facto in the USSR. One of the mistakes of former socialism was merely trying to punish private ownership, rather than subordinate it to the public sector. Marx analyzed markets as being enormously useful in stitching together all of the small owners and building up productive forces, and public ownership as being superior at running large industry.

    Stalin ending the NEP early was a matter of survival, and was correct. China's conditions are different, and now occupies a more classically Marxist economy. It isn't even the same as the NEP, China was closer to the NEP under Mao, the socialist market economy of China is a more classically Marxist economy, with the ability to be so precisely because the imperialists cannot afford to decouple from them.

  • source
  • parent