Sedan comments on Everything belongs to the workers

Everything belongs to the workers (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml

361 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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!

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

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

Deng upheld Stalin and Mao, refusing to create a historical nihilism among the people.
Deng did not state that class struggle was over, but instead that it was alive and well, and must be constantly watched out for.
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.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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... )))

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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?... ))))

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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!)))

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

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

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] timdrake@lemmy.ml 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.

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 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.

parent