/edu/ - Education

Khrushchev did his secret speech and tore up Stalin era economic agreements between USSR and PRC. This pissed off the Chinese and so they became America's factory and supported US imperialism to avoid getting couped since they figured USSR and PRC couldn't form a united bloc against USA and too many global south nations played non aligned. China played the Dengism "socialism by 2050" strategy. There's more to it than that but basically the USSR drew first blood and the PRC flipped the table in a calculated overreaction

Kruschev era leadership did a bunch of rightwing revisionism and opportunism and at the same time forwarded a chauvinistic and domineering line towards China that put the interests if the USSR above solidarity and cooperation. The USSR had kind of fucked over the CPC since Stalin backing the KMT over them and refusing to Interfere in the Korean war etc. And so the USSR seemed unreliable and prone to national chauvinism, which just got that much worse after Stalin died, and at the same time signaling a backstab in the world communist revolution with "the secret speech" etc. Wrecking and looking friendly and ready to cut a deal with the western imperialists to forward their own national interests in particular. Kruschev cabinet also refused to trade industrial equipment to China etc, in order to assist them with building theirbindustrial base. So China saw the writing on the wall and engaged in their own nationalist/national chauvinist maneuvering and aligned themselves strategically with the west, but ended up drifting even further to the right than the USSR did. After the real commitment to communism was abandoned, there was two sherifs and one town called the communist bloc. Their interests were divergent and so they competed with each other, which the USA and co was very happy to exploit and encourage to their own ends.

>>14909
fuckin corn man spoils everything he touches, first he lied about Stalin and Socialism second destroyed the unity between China and USSR

>>14910
>China played the Dengism "socialism by 2050" strategy.
No there was a line struggle and basically a low level civil war in China for nearly 4 decades. Eventually the rightwing capitalist clique won power and re-established a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the ideological rhetoric/justification of "temporarily returning to a market economy in order to build the basis for socialism which China was not ready for" etc and "dengist" "socialism by 2050"

Soviets refused to kill sparrows

>>14913
Mao always included the national bourgeoisie in his New Democracy coalition. It's one of the stars on the PRC flag. To this day though the party leadership is majority proletarian and the national bourgeoisie answer to the authority of the party and must have party members on their directorial boards. Land is leased for a maximum of 70 years. As compromised as their situation may seem if your standard is Total Porky Death, they're still closer to the mark than any other nation of their size and population. Cautiously optimistic.

>>14913
準備好學習中文哥們

>>14913
>re-established a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
It was always there
>2. Protect the industrial, commercial, agricultural and livestock enterprises of the national bourgeoisie. All privately owned factories, shops, banks, warehouses, vessels, wharves, farms, livestock farms and other enterprises will without exception be protected against any encroachment. It is hoped that workers and employees in all occupations will maintain production as usual and that all shops will remain open as usual.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_62.htm

>>14913
all deng did was just return china to the more practical early to mid 1950s economic and political policy. Before the uh mistakes happened

Neither side ever trusted eachother, due to memory of disasters of the the Comintern line in China and Soviet distrust of any communists with an independent power-base, as they made the international communist movement an appendage of their foreign policy and bent and broke it to suit tactical national interest, and deeply feared the loss of this vast loyal army of agents and advocates for their goals around the world were they to no longer be the single rallying point for communists.
Stalin disliked and distructed Mao, Mao disliked and distrusted Stalin, but for obvious reasons they had to put on a show of good relations and Mao pandered to Stalin publicly like all other communists. When Khruschev denounced Stalin this shocked Mao who had been happy to continue to charade and thought it unwise to air dirty laundry and expose people to 'well if the party said such nice things about how great stalin in and it wasn't true, how can i trust anything the party says', and so decided not to follow suit. This also offered an opportunity to break with the Soviets, which they wanted to do regardless, and assert national independence without breaking with the previous line as you can say it is the Soviets who have changed, and you get to tear off a section of that network of influence across the world and take some communist parties with you, fulfilling the worst nightmare of the soviets.

But then it turns out that once you convince yourself that the interests of your particular state are directly identifiable with the interests of world communism/the revolution, the same state logic that emerges in the USSR, of national chauvinism and using communist ideology as a mere appendege of foreign policy, suddenly everything is justified, and in your fellow communist superpower you see a mirrored reflection of everything about yourself and hate and fear it, so it quickly becomes the primary enemy that must be focused on, hence US-alignment. Then even if Mao tried weakly to avert it due to his own sympathies, the overwhelming force in his party were also nationalists like Deng and most of the military, who were only ever in the party because they (correctly) identified it as the only effective vehicle for the basic aims of chinese nationalism against the hollowed out, corrupted KMT, who then systematically removed Lin 'JDPON' Biao, the Gang of Four, etc. in the wake of the failure of the GPCR to transcend the party-state.

>>14912
What a fucking stupid reply.

>>14915
>they're still closer to the mark than any other nation of their size and population
Oh, you mean "India".
Its name is "India".

>>14921
Narendra Modhi's Hindutva regime is not closer to socialism than China is. The Communists of Kerala are nowhere near the levers of power despite their numbers.

>>14919
amazing post. saved.

>>14919
how do you believe future communists movements can avoid the perils of the national question?

>>14924
>>14924
I think that the marriage of communism and nationalism, that really first emerges already in the USSR after 1920, was in the final analysis disasterous and was itself a result of the failure of the anticipated world revolution, one of many compromises with harsh reality made by well-intentioned sincere communists trying to make the best of and salvage a fortified position for the 'real movement'. With any of these compromises I think the people making them almost always envisioned them as temporary, just something to do for 3-5 years before we get back into the swing of things but consistent underestimation of capital, its ability to adapt and mobilise its forces everywhere to put down any revolution in the cradle, dashed all such plans and every compromise then cements itself and needs to become justified, and so it goes one on top of the other until they become the foundations of legitimacy and twist all future socialist construction because making just one more compromise, continuing the charade till the surely immanent eschaton is always easier than tearing up the rotting foundations, thus you only ever consolidate the problems continuing the degeneration towars collapse/capitalism.

I think that in the current era of an entirely world market and global capitalism and a global majority proletarian, no more peasantry, etc. hopefully future communists can dispense entirely with nationalism and compromises made in the past and assert a radically internationalist outlook more similar to the one envisioned by Marx, Engels and their heirs at Zimmerwald. But at the end of the day I think any revolution that loses its momentum and becomes isolated will be forced into compromise and begin degenerating because its simply impossible to maintain the DotP or any transitional model for a prolonged period, the previosu mode of production will reassert itself if you don't push through to the qualitative change (communism).

Aside from the greater issues facing the possibility of future comunist movements in this age of darkest reaction where the proletariat lacks organisation, there's no vanguard, no program, etc. It is an enduring worry for me that so many of those who identify themselves with communism identify it with the long litany of failures and compromises, and have identified those as success and the essence of the movement, taking at face value every contrived statement made in the heat of world historical struggle, every tactical retreat or diversion taken as an article of faith. And at the end of the day the fault lies with the leaders of 20th century communism who, especially after Lenin's death, were cynics and liars who effectively disarmed the communist parties/working class ideologically by treating them as means to an end, and that legacy still weighs like a nightmare on the minds of modern communists. We can only hope tha continued experience of capitalist decline will shape today's proletariat into a new revolutionary subject and vanguard freed of those tendencies and with a new optimism for communism and not for the immortalisation of failure, the Lenin's mausoleum in our own heads.

>>14909
Both sides were in the wrong (and both had points they were right about) in the end the only person who benifited was the USA. Deng Xiaoping eventually healed the split during the Andropov USSR years but it was a little to late since Gorbachev came in next.

>>14913
Dumb Maoist mythology, also there is no 'Socialism by 2050' strategy. China is already socialist, the 2050 goal is that of modernisation.

Deng Xiaoping defeated the rightwing of the party, Hua Yaobang was banned from the party and during 1989 protests he gulaged Zhao Ziyang for life. Deng was a centrist like Stalin.

>>14927
imagine the horrors that would have happened if deng didnt purge zhao or hua

>>14928
There was around 7 million excess deaths in 1990s Russia due to the return of capital. One can only imagine how much worst it would have been in a country (china) that had a much larger population and was one of the poorest countries in the world at the time.

>>14909
Destalinisation in the USSR, it's not unreasonable for Mao to consider two things
>1. The USSR might consider Mao to be part of Stalin's legacy and not someone they want to work with
>2. The USSR had the ears of many in the CCP who might understand Destalinisation as something needing to be replicated in China
Ultimately, the two nations were at very different levels of development and conditions and were heading down different paths accordingly, but the problem is that the USSR was the Communist flagship and inevitably politics would broadly follow the flagship regardless of local conditions without direct intervention. China did directly intervene in their own politics to avoid heading down the same path as the USSR, which no doubt was interpreted as hostility in Moscow.

Perhaps if Moscow were a bit more hands-off with their Communist allies, then it wouldn't have needed to be a split, alas, Moscow was very hands on with his allies' affairs.

Maotism and its consequences has been disaster on human race.

>>14927
>Deng Xiaoping defeated the rightwing of the party, Hua Yaobang was banned from the party and during 1989 protests he gulaged Zhao Ziyang for life. Deng was a centrist like Stalin.
Dengists cant stop winning.

>>14926
Agreed. Most of this board might have agreed a number of years ago as well, although it's become too concentrated on "defending legacies" or "actually existing" things at all costs, to the exclusion of the "ruthless critique of everything existing." Whatever future socialism has, it isn't here.

Stalin's death and the liberalism creeping in

>>14934
>ruthless critique of everything existing.
That only applys if you have a Marx tier intellect, otherwise it just becomes an excuse for babbling midwits to never shut up.

>>14936
That's a great excuse to not even attempt being a communist. And a great example of the 20th century failure attitude, leave the thinking, the critique to the 'marx tier intellects' whose portraits you want to carry at parades while all us lowly midwits should just follow the party line, learn your talking points and thought terminating cliches and shout down any one who disagrees. This kind of 'bolshevised' discipline (ie. complacency) could *maybe* be excused in the era of the Comintern but 80 years on its a sad testament to those who identify themselves with the historical tradition of marx, engels and lenin.

>>14937
t. babbling midwit

>>14926
>so many of those who identify themselves with communism identify it with the long litany of failures and compromises, and have identified those as success and the essence of the movement, taking at face value every contrived statement made in the heat of world historical struggle, every tactical retreat or diversion taken as an article of faith.
Breath of fresh air, thank you. It is worth noting this identification happens, because the draw to "communism" for these people is not experienced/real-sensuous struggle but rather aesthetic. It is bourgeois.

>>14937
>>14926
Rare good posts on this site, bah gawd.
>>14936
Weird how Marx forgot to specify the minimum autism score for ruthless criticism. But I do remember his famous maxim: "De omnibus dubitatum, unless it's said by dudes holding a red flag, then it's Gospel"

>>14919
>Stalin disliked and distructed Mao, Mao disliked and distrusted Stalin
sauce? Im pretty sure there was some bad blood over kmt support, and both were dangerous and smart political beasts, but everything after CPC victory seemed pretty swell.

>This also offered an opportunity to break with the Soviets, which they wanted to do regardless
no ? afaik they only did coz ussr tried to renegotiate everything in their favor at stalin death, it's the stab combined with the revisionism that did it, and the fact Khrushchev was either a traitor or a moron.

>>14926
>hopefully future communists can dispense entirely with nationalism and compromises made in the past
idealist ultra, if anything can be learnt at all from 20th century socialism experiments, is that nationalism is needed, there is no other basis for socialism than the nation states (federation states included)

>And at the end of the day the fault lies with the leaders of 20th century communism who, especially after Lenin's death, were cynics and liars who effectively disarmed the communist parties/working class ideologically
I can only hope people such a mao and stalin will appear again to help lead humanity toward communism, because its certainly not with wankers like you that we will get anything done

>>14939
Pretty much this. It's much worse on this site, or the internet in general: the internet encourages parasocial relationships and fixation on aesthetics above all else. The product is hyper-aestheticized retards adopting niche ideologies they get from memes because "damn this shit cool, it's my identity now". Their relation to politics is really no different from how people view sports, and their relationships with actual revolutionaries is no different than that between the average Liverpool fan and the actual players in the field, it's just a game.
I lost the other Mattick pic but here's the quote I had in mind
>Instead of finding their orientation in the actual social conditions and their possibilities, the new leftists base their concerns mainly on a set of ideologies that have no relevance to the requirements of social change in capitalist nations. They find their inspiration not in the developmental processes of their own society but in the heroes of popular revolution in faraway countries, thereby revealing that their enthusiasm is not as yet a real concern for decisive social change.

>>14941
>the fact Khrushchev was either a traitor or a moron.
Shit-talking your favorite mustache daddy =/= betrayal, cope

>>14942
>I can only hope people such a mao and stalin will appear again to help lead humanity toward communism
Yeah, they famously led people to communism lmao. Furthermore, as we all know, history is made when avatars of Great Men. The masses only exist to be led by these Great Men the way shepherds lead sheep. I see you've been brushing up on your Giovanni Gentile
>idealist ultra, if anything can be learnt at all from 20th century socialism experiments, is that nationalism is needed, there is no other basis for socialism than the nation states
Alright fuck my life I typed out this whole post and only just realized I got baited. You're good

>>14941
Apologies in advance for the length, I had hoped to only take small extracts from this but re-reading it I felt it would be better posted almost in full without editorialising
>The Wang Ming line[3] was in fact Stalin’s line. It ended up destroying ninety percent of our strength in our bases, and one hundred percent of [our strength] in the white areas.[4] Comrade [Liu] Shaoqi[5] pointed this out in his report to the Eighth [Party] Congress.[6] Why, then, did he not openly attribute [the losses] to the [impact of] Stalin’s line? There is an explanation. The Soviet Party itself could criticize Stalin; but it would be inappropriate for us to criticize him. We should maintain a good relationship with the Soviet Union. Maybe [we] could make our criticism public sometime in the future. It has to be that way in today’s world, because facts are facts. The Comintern made numerous mistakes in the past. Its early and late stages were not so bad, but its middle stage was not so good: it was all right when Lenin was alive and when [Georgii] Dimitrov was in charge.[7] The first Wang Ming line dominated [our party] for four years, and the Chinese revolution suffered the biggest losses.[8]Wang Ming is now in Moscow taking a sick leave, but still we are going to elect him to be a member of the party’s Central Committee. He indeed is an instructor for our party; he is a professor, an invaluable one who could not be purchased by money. He has taught the whole party, so that it would not follow his line.
>That was the first time when we got the worst of Stalin.
>The second time was during the anti-Japanese war. Speaking Russian and good at flattering Stalin, Wang Ming could directly communicate with Stalin. Sent back to China by Stalin, he tried to set [us] toward right deviation this time, instead of following the leftist line he had previously advocated. Advocating [CCP] collaboration with the Guomindang [the Nationalist Party or GMD], he can be described as “decking himself out and self-inviting [to the GMD];” he wanted [us] to obey the GMD whole-heartedly. The Six-Principle Program he put forward was to overturn our Party’s Ten-Principle Policy. [His program] opposed establishing anti-Japanese bases, advocated giving up our Party’s own armed force, and preached that as long as Jiang Jieshi [Chiang Kai-shek] was in power, there would be peace [in China]. We redressed this deviation. [Ironically,] Jiang Jieshi helped us correct this mistake: while Wang Ming “decked himself out and fawned on [Jiang],” Jiang Jieshi “slapped his face and kicked him out.” Hence, Jiang Jieshi was China’s best instructor: he had educated the people of the whole nation as well as all of our Party members. Jiang lectured with his machine guns whereas Wang Ming educated us with his own words.
>The third time was after Japan’s surrender and the end of the Second World War. Stalin met with [Winston] Churchill and [Franklin D.] Roosevelt and decided to give the whole of China to America and Jiang Jieshi. In terms of material and moral support, especially moral support, Stalin hardly gave any to us, the Communist Party, but supported Jiang Jieshi. This decision was made at the Yalta conference. Stalin later told Tito [this decision] who mentioned his conversation [with Stalin on this decision] in his autobiography.
>Only after the dissolution of the Comintern did we start to enjoy more freedom. We had already begun to criticize opportunism and the Wang Ming line, and unfolded the rectification movement. The rectification, in fact, was aimed at denouncing the mistakes that Stalin and the Comintern had committed in directing the Chinese revolution; however, we did not openly mention a word about Stalin and the Comintern. Sometime in the near future, [we] may openly do so. There are two explanations of why we did not openly criticize [Stalin and the Comintern]: first, as we followed their instructions, we have to take some responsibility ourselves. Nobody compelled us to follow their instructions! Nobody forced us to be wrongfully deviated to right and left directions! There are two kinds of Chinese: one kind is a dogmatist who completely accepts Stalin’s line; the other opposes dogmatism, thus refusing to obey [Stalin’s] instructions. Second, we do not want to displease [the Soviets], to disrupt our relations with the Soviet Union. The Comintern has never made self-criticism on these mistakes; nor has the Soviet Union ever mentioned these mistakes. We would have fallen out with them had we raised our criticism.
>The fourth time was when [Moscow] regarded me as a half-hearted Tito or semi-Titoist. Not only in the Soviet Union but also in other socialist countries and some non-socialist countries were there some people who had suspected whether China’s was a real revolution.
>You might wonder why [we] still pay a tribute to Stalin in China by hanging his portrait on the wall. Comrades from Moscow have informed us that they no longer hang Stalin’s portraits and only display Lenin’s and current leaders’ portraits in public parade. They, however, did not ask us to follow their suit. We find it very difficult to cope. The four mistakes committed by Stalin are yet to be made known to the Chinese people as well as to our whole party. Our situation is quite different from yours: your [suffering inflicted by Stalin] is known to the people and to the whole world. Within our party, the mistakes of the two Wang Ming lines are well known; but our people do not know that these mistakes originated in Stalin. Only our Central Committee was aware that Stalin blocked our revolution and regarded me as a half-hearted Tito.
>We had no objection that the Soviet Union functions as a center [of the world revolution] because it benefits the socialist movement. You may disagree [with us] on this point. You wholeheartedly support Khrushchev’s campaign to criticize Stalin, but we cannot do the same because our people would dislike it. In the previous parades [in China], we held up portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, as well as those of a few Chinese [leaders]—Mao, Liu [Shaoqi], Zhou [Enlai], and Zhu [De][9] —and other brotherly parties’ leaders. Now we adopt a measure of “overthrowing all”: no one’s portrait is handed out. For this year’s “First of May” celebration, Ambassador Bobkoveshi[10] already saw in Beijing that no one’s portrait was held in parade. However, the portraits of five dead persons—Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin and Sun [Yat-sen]—and a not yet dead person—Mao Zedong—are still hanging [on the wall]. Let them hang on the wall! You Yugoslavians may comment that the Soviet Union no longer hangs Stalin’s portrait, but the Chinese still do.

>The above-mentioned four mistakes Stalin committed [concerning China] may also become our burden. When China becomes industrialized in later years, it will be more likely that we get cocky. Upon your return to your country, please tell your youngsters that, should China stick her tail up in the future, even if the tail becomes ten thousand meters high, still they must criticize China. [You] must keep an eye on China, and the entire world must keep an eye on China. At that time, I definitely will not be here: I will already be attending a conference together with Marx.
>We are sorry that we hurt you before, thus owing you a good deal. Killing must be compensated by life and debts must be paid in cash. We have criticized you before, but why do we still keep quiet? Before [Khrushchev’s] criticism of Stalin, we were not in a position to be as explicit about some issues as we are now. In my previous conversations with [Ambassador] Bobkoveshi, I could only say that as long as the Soviet Union did not criticize Stalin, we would be in no position to do so; as long as the Soviet Union did not restore [diplomatic] relations with Yugoslavia, we could not establish relations with you.[15] Now these issues can be openly discussed. I have already talked to the Soviet comrades about the four mistakes that Stalin had committed [to China]; I talked to [Soviet Ambassador Pavel] Yudin[16] about it, and I shall talk to Khrushchev about it next time when we meet. I talk to you about it because you are our comrades. However, we still cannot publish this in the newspapers, because the imperialists should not be allowed to know about it. We may openly talk about one or two mistakes of Stalin’s in the future. Our situation is quite different from yours: Tito’s autobiography mentions Stalin because you have already broken up with the Soviet Union.
>Stalin advocated dialectical materialism, but sometimes he lacked materialism and, instead, practiced metaphysics; he wrote about historical materialism, but very often suffered from historical idealism. Some of his behavior, such as going to extremes, fostering personal myth, and embarrassing others, are by no means [forms] of materialism.
>Before I met with Stalin, I did not have much good feeling about him. I disliked reading his works, and I have read only “On the Basis of Leninism,” a long article criticizing Trotsky, and “Be Carried Away by Success,” etc. I disliked even more his articles on the Chinese revolution. He was very different from Lenin: Lenin shared his heart with others and treated others as equals whereas Stalin liked to stand above every one else and order others around. This style can be detected from his works. After I met with him, I became even more disgusted: I quarreled a lot with him in Moscow. Stalin was excitable by temperament. When he became agitated, he would spell out nasty things.
>I have written altogether three pieces praising Stalin. The first was written in Yanan to celebrate his sixtieth birthday [21 December 1939—ed.], the second was the congratulatory speech [I delivered] in Moscow [in December 1949—ed.], and the third was an article requested by Pravda after his death [March 1953—ed.]. I always dislike congratulating others as well as being congratulated by others. When I was in Moscow to celebrate his birthday, what else could I have done if I had chosen not to congratulate him? Could I have cursed him instead? After his death the Soviet Union needed our support and we also wanted to support the Soviet Union. Consequently, I wrote that piece to praise his virtues and achievements. That piece was not for Stalin; it was for the Soviet Communist Party. As for the piece I did in Yanan, I had to ignore my personal feelings and treat him as the leader of a socialist country. Therefore, that piece was rather vigorous whereas the other two came out of [political] need, not my heart, nor at my will. Human life is just as contradictory as this: your emotion tells you not to write these pieces, but your rationality compels you to do so.
>Now that Moscow has criticized Stalin, we are free to talk about these issues. Today I tell you about the four mistakes committed by Stalin, but, in order to maintain relations with the Soviet Union, [we] cannot publish them in our newspapers. Since Khrushchev’s report only mentioned the conflict over the sugar plant while discussing Stalin’s mistakes concerning us, we feel it inappropriate to make them public. There are other issues involving conflicts and controversies.
>Generally speaking, the Soviet Union is good. It is good because of four factors: Marxism-Leninism, the October Revolution, the main force [of the socialist camp], and industrialization. They have their negative side, and have made some mistakes. However, their achievements constitute the major part [of their past] while their shortcomings are of secondary significance. Now that the enemy is taking advantage of the criticism of Stalin to take the offensive on a world-wide scale, we ought to support the Soviet Union. They will certainly correct their mistakes. Khrushchev already corrected the mistake concerning Yugoslavia. They are already aware of Wang Ming’s mistakes, although in the past they were unhappy with our criticism of Wang Ming. They have also removed the “half-hearted Tito” [label from me], thus, eliminating altogether [the labels on] one and a half Titos. We are pleased to see that Tito’s tag was removed.
>Some of our people are still unhappy with the criticism of Stalin. However, such criticism has positive effects because it destroys mythologies, and opens [black] boxes. This entails liberation, indeed, a “war of liberation.” With it, people are becoming so courageous that they will speak their minds, as well as be able to think about issues.
>Liberty, equality, and fraternity are slogans of the bourgeoisie, but now we have to fight for them. Is [our relationship with Moscow] a father-and-son relationship or one between brothers? It was between father and son in the past; now it more or less resembles a brotherly relationship, but the shadow of the father-and-son relationship is not completely removed. This is understandable, because changes can never be completed in one day. With certain openness, people are now able to think freely and independently. Now there is, in a sense, the atmosphere of anti-feudalism: a father-and-son relationship is giving way to a brotherly relationship, and a patriarchal system is being toppled. During [Stalin’s] time people’s minds were so tightly controlled that even the feudalist control had been surpassed. While some enlightened feudal lords or emperors would accept criticism, [Stalin] would tolerate none. Yugoslavia might also have such a ruler [in your history] who might take it well even when people cursed him right in his face. The capitalist society has taken a step ahead of the feudalist society. The Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States are allowed to quarrel with each other.
>We socialist countries must find [better] solutions. Certainly, we need concentration and unification; otherwise, uniformity cannot be maintained. The uniformity of people’s minds is in our favor, enabling us to achieve industrialization in a short period and to deal with the imperialists. It, however, embodies some shortcomings, that is, people are made afraid of speaking out. Therefore, we must find some ways to encourage people to speak out. Our Politburo’s comrades have recently been considering these issues.
>Few people in China have ever openly criticized me. The [Chinese] people are tolerant of my shortcomings and mistakes. It is because we always want to serve the people and do good things for the people. Although we sometimes also suffer from bossism and bureaucracy, the people believe that we have done more good things than bad ones and, as a result, they praise us more than criticize us. Consequently, an idol is created: when some people criticize me, others would oppose them and accuse them of disrespecting the leader. Everyday I and other comrades of the central leadership receive some three hundred letters, some of which are critical of us. These letters, however, are either not signed or signed with a false name. The authors are not afraid that we would suppress them, but they are afraid that others around them would make them suffer.
t. Mao to Vladimir Popović in 1956

>>14910
Absolute state of China.

>>14940
Vermin, come to wreak another thread.

>>14943
>They find their inspiration not in the developmental processes of their own society but in the heroes of popular revolution in faraway countries
Leftcom doesnt understand Internationalism and thinks we should admire the development of Capital, Imagine my shock!…

>>14948
>reads 'inspiration not in the developmental processes of their own society' as 'admire the development of capital'
least productivist anti-leftcom

>>14948
Internationalism is when I see something from a different country and think it's cool. Communism is when I post on the internet about how cool that thing is.

>>14933
Controversial political opinions
Hu was notable for his liberalism and the frank expression of his opinions, which sometimes agitated other senior Chinese leaders. On a trip to Inner Mongolia in 1984, Hu publicly suggested that Chinese people might start eating in a Western way (with forks and knives, on individual plates) in order to prevent communicable diseases. He was one of the first Chinese officials to abandon wearing a Mao suit in favor of Western business suits. When asked which of Mao Zedong's theories were desirable for modern China, he replied "I think, none".[20]

Hu was not prepared to abandon Marxism completely, but frankly expressed the opinion that Communism could not solve "all of mankind's problems". Hu encouraged intellectuals to raise controversial subjects in the media, including democracy, human rights, and the possibility of introducing legal limits to the Communist Party's influence within the Chinese government. Many party elders mistrusted Hu from the start and eventually grew to fear his influence.[19]

>>14926


Good post. one more question I've always wondered. why was capitalism able to slowly and imperceptibly replace feudalism over many centuries but communism requires such a sudden, fierce, fast, simultaneous, dedicated, disciplined international struggle to be successful?

>>14953
because the cold war and its legacies created a double standard.

>>14953
The overturning of feudal relations was hardly 'imperceptible,' it required numerous revolutions and brutal social transformations, including a world war and the actions of many communists. And you could argue feudal relations still exist in some places today. Given that, why would you expect that a system such as global capitalism would not require a massive, violent, disciplined movement to overturn?

>>14953
>why was capitalism able to slowly and imperceptibly replace feudalism over many centuries but communism requires such a sudden, fierce, fast, simultaneous, dedicated, disciplined international struggle to be successful?
I think it comes down to several connected factors.
1. Globalisation: the world five centuries ago was a lot more seperated, it was possible for a new mode of production to develop in a localised fashion, without stepping on too many toes and getting itself crushed by the old ruling class. Class struggle still took place but it wasn't as existential between the aristocracy and the nascent bourgeoisie early on, they could leverage their position and build up their free cities and nurture their little nurseries of wage labour relations, they also made themselves useful and eventually indispensible to the aristocracy whose feudal order was in ever more terminal crisis. There was also the new world, colonisation allowed for the capitalist version of utopian socialism to happen and build up capitalist relations of production from scratch with no historical baggage in the colonies and supercharge capitalism back home with the immense profits yielded by expropriating the natives and doing slavery. Once the free real estate starts running out and the horizons of possibility start closing in you do see more violent class conflict with bourgeois revolutions breaking out all over the place.
In contrast by the time a proletariat is forming in full and socialism begins being articulated the world is already very much on its way to being a world market, and as many pre-capitalist remnants around the world found out there was no where a capitalist gunboat couldn't reach you, so with developed capitalist europe (and later north america and japan) holding hegemony in their search for new markets there were no longer localised spaces for new modes of production to appear and develop.
2. History happens faster: historical change, technological progress, all happen exponentially faster with each mode of production and so the transition between modes of production that took centuries will now take decades as all human activies that make up historical change become easier and faster and more efficient to accomplish.
3. There is a difference between the class struggle giving birth to capitalism and giving birth to communism. The feudal ruling class, at least initially, did not depend on the bourgeoisie, it extracted surplus from the peasantry and was locked in the most viscious class struggles with it, the bourgeoisie was peripheral, in its own enclaves and its own nascent urban working class (increasingly dispossesed artisans and rural migrants), and even as they became interlinked and more dependent on one another, they were parallel modes of production, with the final crisis between them being that of encroachment, with the sickly, chronically inefficient, uninnovative feudal relations struggling from crisis to crisis while the capitalist relations sought new markets and new agrarian capital to incorporate. Now the feudal ruling class did try to violently defend itself, succeeding occassionaly, and other times being all but wiped out in an area, but generally they were simply bought out and incorporated into the new ruling class. Class struggle under the capitalist mode of production is entirely binary, the capitalist class is dependant on the proletariat and the proletariat is defined by the capitalists, the struggle is existential.
I do think that had the proletariat secured a dominant/hegemonic share of the world in 1917 then there could've been a reasonably gradual process of struggle and effectively 'buying out'/pressuring the remaining bourgeois states into submission once they realised the game was up, but unfortunately they stopped us before that could happen.
4. The state: the feudal state, such as it was, was weak and lacked the bureacratic machinery to impose the class interests of the feudal class as ruthlessly as it migth have wanted, the bourgeois state is a disciplined machinery imposing the impersonal will of capital, and the capitalist class which is far more connected, organised and disciplined that the disparate aristocracy in their country estates ever was. From the masonic lodges of the 1700s to the chambers of commerce and international summits and bodies of today the capitalists are organised to enforce their class interests with the modern state as their primary tool. Just as the feudal wars of disparate roving bands of looters and occasional skirmishes gave way to capitalist total war, the class struggle against capitalism will take on a total world revolutionary form that will require a disciplined and organised proletariat to win.