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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I’m not arguing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, I agree that retaining political control is to Mao’s credit, as he built the foundation of the state apparatus.