Why wasn’t there any type of De-Maoization?
When Nikita Khrushchev took office after Stalin he went on a campaign of de-Stalinization where statues of Stalin were torn down and streets and cities named after him were renamed. Why didn’t Deng Xiaoping do the same with Mao Zedong? I’m not saying that Deng should have or shouldn’t have but I’m just wondering why. Because Mao is still celebrating in China and seen as a great figure who only made a few mistakes.
Deng was not a traitor. Khruschev was. Simple as.
>>2530050I really don't understand how people can come to this insane pro-Deng anti-KKKruschev position. It's pure ideological ecclecticism.
Because it would be less like Khrushchev attacking Stalin and more like as if Khrushchev attacked Lenin.
It would be against the CPC's capitalist roaders "best interest" (they'd expose themselves too hard and induce another popular revolt).
Remember that revisionists will always hide behind the
aesthetics of revolution. Khrushchev defended Lenin from Stalin the traitor, you see! (and then when you analyze the practice/policy and content to verify the veracity of the claims: oh wow it's all weaponized bullshit by a hostile class wrestling state control for themselves again: that lovely bureaucrat + petty bourgeois alliance).
>>2530050k mouthbreather
Everyone was in awe of Maos BCC
>>2530050this, khrushchev was a wrecker
>>2530052nice try cornman
>>2530053this, mao was a wrecker
>>2530051Just standing with the winners against the losers, China is a rising superpower, the soviets are dead, thats what this is about.
>We will make an objective assessment of Chairman Mao's contributions and his mistakes. We will reaffirm that his contributions are primary and his mistakes secondary. We will adopt a realistic approach towards the mistakes he made late in life. We will continue to adhere to Mao Zedong Thought, which represents the correct part of Chairman Mao's life. Not only did Mao Zedong Thought lead us to victory in the revolution in the past; it is – and will continue to be – a treasured possession of the Chinese Communist Party and of our country. […] We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchov did to Stalin.Deng Xiaoping -
http://en.people.cn/dengxp/vol2/text/b1470.htmlPerry Anderson notes on his essay 'Two Revolutions' how, in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution, Deng and his colleagues assembled about 4 thousand researchers and party historians to compile a retrospect of the event, resulting in a 35 thousand-word document entailing a meticulous analysis of the period, which was later adopted as a party resolution. Instead of Khrushchev's one-man endeavor that individualized the critique and layed all blame on one person, the CPC's document was the result of a broad mobilization inside the party, all the while being careful enough to pursue a proper structural analysis, criticizing Mao's role in the Cultural Revolution without ignoring his merits in leading the 1949 revolution and building the country up.
the chinese don't believe in instantly demonizing someone who did amazing things just because he was a little mean about it, mao did nothing wrong,
>>2530050holy mother of trvth tsar bombas
>>2530052>Becaus-ACK!DWABB (Deng will always be based)
Because everyone died.
Because Mao was the founder of the state and Deng wasn't suicidal. Khrushchev could claim a return to Lenin but if Mao were to be condemned the CPC would have no leg to stand on.
is denouncement of the GPCR a type of de-maoization for you?
>>2530094>a retrospect of the event, resulting in a 35 thousand-word document entailing a meticulous analysis of the period, which was later adopted as a party resolution.i wonder if it was/will ever be released to the general public. so far i've only seen the event officially decried as a "great disaster"/"leftist endeavor"/"historical nihilism", but it's good to learn that they did not commit khrushchevite-type blame game
>>2530052>Khrushchev defended Lenin from Stalin the traitor, you see!<mfw modern russian reactionaries are doing the opposite by claiming lenin was a "traitorous german spy that wrecked le russia, muh romanovs shot, civil war red terror 900000mil dead" and simultaneously praise stalin for being an "effective manager"i fucking hate lev gumilev so much it's unreal, allowing his reactionary drivel to be published was a grave mistake of the late soviet censors.
they thought his pseudo-scientific geopol theories won't do much harm as they were rightfully ridiculed by his academic contemporaries but give an inch to reactoids and they'll take a mile
>>2530094>in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution, Deng and his colleagues assembled about 4 thousand researchers and party historians to compile a retrospect of the event, resulting in a 35 thousand-word document entailing a meticulous analysis of the periodGenuinely hilarious to read this. What, did those 4000 researchers all write one sentence each? 4000 researchers collectively writing 35,000 words is nothing. I format and bind my own books as a means of disseminating propaganda where I'm at, and 35,000 words is
maybe 100 pages. Hell, I've written pamphlets longer than that.
For comparison, Stalin's
History of the CPSU(B) is around 140,000 words, the CPC's investigation into the life of Lenin (
Lenin's fight against revisionism and opportunism) is around 60,000 words, in
History Project of the Republic — a study of the complete history of the Chinese revolution written by Chinese Maoists — Chapter 2 on the CR
alone is 50,000 words. Boasting about 35,000 words makes you come off like a high schooler boasting about writing one whole page double-spaced. It's pathetic and hilarious.
>>2530738It's 35k
chinese words so that's like 500k English at least
>>2530050>Mao was not a traitor, Stalin wasFTFY
>>2530738who is the intended audience for 100+ pages pamphlets?
>>2530790Man he was based. Deng is so underanalyzed honestly, mostly because of westoid ultra seething. Does anyone have any good resources on him?
>>2530892Oh yeah he was real based. Like "collaborating with the CIA in Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan"–based.
>>2530790isnt this the same interview where deng fumbled when he was asked about cpcs support for the khmer rouge?
>>2530904>>2530903Nice try Kurshiekiddie
>>2530903pobody's nerfect
>>2530935you may call me kurshiekiddie but Im pretty sure this was the same interview where deng gave a pretty bad response regarding the khmer rouge
>>2530903Yes, he did bad things too, and he knew it, thats why he didnt like to overblow his own achievements.
Stupid ultra.
>>2530051Khrushchev was a revisionist who created the political nomenklatura who later became self sabotaging during Brezhnev’s era
Deng on the other hand managed to drag China out of the dogmatic interpretations of dialectical materialism and apply it pragmatically through socialism with Chinese characteristics (which isn’t a retreat into capitalism but rather using it’s market mechanism to create the material conditions necessary for escaping it)
which was a reason why China survived while USSR didn’t.
>>2531061>China survived while USSR didn’tboth didn't survive
>>2531065Considering one became the socialist super power who became the main competitor of the US in pacific while USSR collapsed and it’s centre of power became a neo fascist hellhole that needs Chinese help to stay afloat I’d say China has done the right choice
someone bake a new /PRC/ already
>>2531065take your meds
>>2530825re-read what I said. I said
maybe 100 pages. So 100
max in a normal book. You can definitely fit 35k words into less than that. The point is that a 35,000-word "analysis" is an absolute joke and the CPC absolutely pivoted as fast as it possibly could to bury the spirit of the Cultural Revolution by any means necessary. The analysis was only ever meant to validate the desired conclusion of that struggle already being dictated from above, it was never a genuine bottom-up look at the successes and failures of revolutionary China.
>>2531198*like Stalin did, obviously.
Because China is still Maoist. It's just a higher level of Maoist (Dengist). Trust the plan.
>>2531180You are a retarded Westerner who has never even visited China and has no access to first hand accounts of the Cultural Revolution. I will trust the CPC's analysis over yours. No investigation no right to speak has been flipped around in the Western world to be "No investigation but I will adopt a line anyways despite knowing literally nothing besides what Wikipedia tells me". You western leftists are all retarded.
>>2531249Hiding on the tor node again?
>>2531206>You are a retarded WesternerNice try, but nah.
>and has no access to first hand accounts of the Cultural RevolutionThere are plenty of firsthand accounts of the CR available in English, actually. Mobo Gao has written multiple books, Dongping Han has also written a book on the experiences of his town that is widely available. Books by Chinese people who lived through the CR are really not hard to come by. One of the longest films ever made,
How Yukong Moved the Mountains, is entirely about documenting firsthand experiences of the CR.
>despite knowing literally nothing besides what Wikipedia tells meWikipedia is in no way charitable to the Cultural Revolution lmao.
>>2531252Got nothing again?
>>2531249Yeah, class struggle is not Marx's concept, it ties back to at least Ricardo. Where's the issue? Here's from the horse's mouth:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm>… And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society . >>2531318>>2531364Can't stop the cope
Unironically because it’s a bone-headed move for any Nation State.
You need the foundation of the state to be sanctified, like the U.S. did with the founding fathers. This creates a mytho-historical superstructure that builds commitment to the state and encourages engagement within the political forms of the state.
>>2531369Khrushchev tried to do this though, even during the secret speech he tried to play it off like it was a grand return to Lenin.
>>2531385
>So they reversed everything Mao
Not true.
>>2531407>he tried to play it off like it was a grand return to Lenin.same as gorbachev, kek
>>2531391
where can I see this rulebook?
>>2531436Tbh Ghorby did the same thing that ideologues accuse Deng of doing, the difference is that Deng’s plan was actually Marxist and not socdem butt licker
>>2531318Do you have any non-CIA bitch source to site for that ?
Unique IPs: 42