Mao's criticism of Stalin

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[The Vegan Marxist]

True, but one also has to keep in mind that Mao did not support the de-stalinization programs that Khrushchev implemented through the secret speech while in power.

[Hiero]

True, but one also has to keep in mind that Mao did not support the de-stalinization programs that Khrushchev implemented through the secret speech while in power.

But Stalin did allow for that process to happen. Not as a concious agent but as fault of his short commings as a Marxist. And this is eloborated in Mao's criticism.


He did not understand dialectics and ended up in metaphysics. He hence sometimes did not understand the demands of the masses. He did not distinguish between the different kinds of contradictions.

Does Mao actually say Stalin did not understand dialectics? I would differer and say that Stalin had shot sighted undersanding of dialectics. That is the reason why Stalin could not distinguish different kinds of contradictions or the depth of a contradiction.

Mao adds the depth to dialectics, that Stalin lacked. The lack of depth lead Stalin to ignored superstructure and focus only on economic base.

[pranabjyoti]

The actually the problem with Stalin is that, THERE IS NO EXAMPLE TO LEAD HIM. But that's not the case with Mao. I am curious to guess that without the example of Stalin, perhaps Mao himself would have caused the same mistakes.
As per a poetry of Lu Xun, "Soldiers are soldiers with all of their wounds, but flies, however flawless they may be are nothing but flies". The way Mao had looked upon Stalin, if we ourselves now look at Mao in the same way, perhaps we too have find many faults of Mao himself.
As for example, Mao relied on old fashioned technologies BECAUSE THAT WILL CREATE MORE JOBS. At least I can say that this isn't a view in harmony with dialectic materialism. But, at least I know that today we are standing on their built structures and I AM PRETTY SURE MAO KEEP THIS THING IN MIND WHILE CRITICIZING STALIN. And unlike the trots and anarchos, we should keep that point in our mind while discussion our great leaders.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Mao also wrote several critiques (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html) of soviet economic organization. He makes a lot of points there, but to me the central one is that Stalin neglected the political organization of the masses in the working process. Which he did, basically (and Trotsky and Lenin did too fwiw). See the very good points raised by the anarchists in the Taylorism thread.

[khad]

And which was the first of these countries to actively aid Western imperialists (esp. the United States) in destroying socialist movements, the USSR or China?


Does Mao actually say Stalin did not understand dialectics? I would differer and say that Stalin had shot sighted undersanding of dialectics. That is the reason why Stalin could not distinguish different kinds of contradictions or the depth of a contradiction.

Mao adds the depth to dialectics, that Stalin lacked. The lack of depth lead Stalin to ignored superstructure and focus only on economic base.
This is the sort of opportunism which enabled Dengism as an organic outgrowth of Maoist principles, and the sort which landed China a geostrategic alliance with the United States.


Besides, people's heads are not like leeks. When you cut them off, they will not grow again. If you cut off a head wrongly, there is no way of rectifying the mistake even if you want to.
This is funny as shit. When the CPC and the CPSU were jointly running the port city of Dalian from 1945-1949, it was the Chinese who were all into mobilizing mobs to lynch suspected traitors. Those damn "Stalinists" had funny ideas about actually holding trials, like, you know, in a courtroom.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

none of them wanted to give the workers power over their own lives, leave that to the dear leader huh.

[khad]

Mao did not view the USSR as socialist. So, the Chinese were not consciously "destroying socialist movements".
So tell me, would you have sent 400 million dollars of weapons to the Mujahideen pederasts?

[khad]

Like I said earlier, the Soviets were seen to be as imperialistic as the Americans. This was why this happened. Considering that there is no Soviet Union today, we should situate the historical context of such actions and stop making appeals to emotion which help noone's understanding.
And yet not every "socialist" nation in the world came to that conclusion.

The chief proponent of the Social Imperialism thesis, the People's Republic of China, ended up being the strategic partner of the United States, even contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to the CIA's dirty wars and fully embracing neoliberalism.

What was the main thrust of the social imperialism critique? Yeah--that the socialist veneer conceals an economic base that is thoroughly capitalist. Coming from a nation that embraced neoliberalism and is now practicing neocolonial exploitation in the Third World, this is no legitimate argument whatsoever. To me, Mao's bullshit reading of dialectics was simply a thin philosophical veneer justifying every bit of opportunism and power grabbing by the Chinese political (now capitalist) elite. I think everyone can see that Dengism was an organic development of Mao's New Democracy, a crude ideology of class collaboration premised on the flimsiest Marxian "dialectics."

There is a clear right and wrong here, and being mealy mouthed about it just makes you look like a coward.

[scarletghoul]

The fruit of Stalin's failures is Khruschev himself. Stalin is ultimately to blame for Khruschev (and Lenin for Stalin, Khruschev for Brezhnev, Brezhnev for Gorbachev). Khruschevite revisionism could only have thrived and ruled in a bureaucratic mechanicist framework like the Soviet state had by the 50s; so Stalin essentially layed the foundations for the very undoing of his successes. This is imho the big tragedy of Stalinism, that it dialectically dug its own grave (in much the same way capitalism is supposed to..)

However of course Pranabjyoti is absoloutely correct; Stalin didn't have the benefit of example, and this is what allowed Mao to do better than Stalin and will allow us to do better than Mao.

[khad]

The fruit of Stalin's failures is Khruschev himself. Stalin is ultimately to blame for Khruschev (and Lenin for Stalin, Khruschev for Brezhnev, Brezhnev for Gorbachev). Khruschevite revisionism could only have thrived and ruled in a bureaucratic mechanicist framework like the Soviet state had by the 50s; so Stalin essentially layed the foundations for the very undoing of his successes. This is imho the big tragedy of Stalinism, that it dialectically dug its own grave (in much the same way capitalism is supposed to..)

However of course Pranabjyoti is absoloutely correct; Stalin didn't have the benefit of example, and this is what allowed Mao to do better than Stalin and will allow us to do better than Mao.
Khrushchev compared to Deng Xiaoping?

Yeah, I really wonder which country rolled snake eyes.

[scarletghoul]

Khrushchev compared to Deng Xiaoping?

Yeah, I really wonder which country rolled snake eyes.
The countries faced differant situations. The Chinese economy was still not very developed while the Soviet Union was an industrial superpower, so the need to develop was much bigger and therefore the tempation of capitalism much stronger. Also, the Chinese revolution was against feudalism and imperialism, so sections of the bourgeoisie were required, which of course meant that bourgeois elements were present in the party, including bourgeois economic ideas. The CPSU didn't really have this problem.
In other words China was much more vulnerable to capitalism than the USSR was because of its low development, not for any incorrect line. The fact that a country was able to progress from semifeudalism to such radical socialism in a few decades is testament to the creative might of Maoist ideas...

[pranabjyoti]

The fruit of Stalin's failures is Khruschev himself. Stalin is ultimately to blame for Khruschev (and Lenin for Stalin, Khruschev for Brezhnev, Brezhnev for Gorbachev). Khruschevite revisionism could only have thrived and ruled in a bureaucratic mechanicist framework like the Soviet state had by the 50s; so Stalin essentially layed the foundations for the very undoing of his successes. This is imho the big tragedy of Stalinism, that it dialectically dug its own grave (in much the same way capitalism is supposed to..)

However of course Pranabjyoti is absoloutely correct; Stalin didn't have the benefit of example, and this is what allowed Mao to do better than Stalin and will allow us to do better than Mao.
In my opinion, all of the faults had emerged from the lack of assistance and supporting movements from the oppressed people of the world i.e. the general people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. From the birth, USSR was under attack from imperialists and to counter that attacks, USSR have to fight alone and from the single handed fights, all the bureaucratic and military like organizations evolved. During the period from 1917 to 1945, the imperialists of the world was united against USSR but the oppressed people of the world hadn't been able to stand beside it. Huge bloodshed and loss of valuable lives ultimately end in the rise of Khrushchev like revisionists. The condition of China is different, it was backward more feudal and very little capitalist country. Therefore, it lacks in working class and proletariat.
At the end, I just want to say that the FAULTS AND WEAKNESSES OF STALIN AND MAO ARE THE FAULTS AND WEAKNESSES OF WORKERS OF THE WORLD. So, instead of making sects, lets come together and try to take the best of their teachings and put all our efforts to make applications.
I MYSELF LIKE TO BE MORE LIKE HONEYBEE THAN A HOUSEFLY.

[gorillafuck]

Like I said earlier, the Soviets were seen to be as imperialistic as the Americans. This was why this happened.
That's a load of shit. Even if they did not consider the USSR socialist (which I would not either), it would be completely ridiculous to think that aiding the Mujihadeen was someone "fighting imperialism".

[Adi Shankara]

This is funny as shit. When the CPC and the CPSU were jointly running the port city of Dalian from 1945-1949, it was the Chinese who were all into mobilizing mobs to lynch suspected traitors. Those damn "Stalinists" had funny ideas about actually holding trials, like, you know, in a courtroom.

Agreed; I find it highly ironic to see Mao criticizing anything. He was a pretty big hypocrite in many aspects.

[gorillafuck]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Who said "fighting imperialism"? To be clear, the Soviet-American conflict was seen as an inter-imperialist conflict.
You said the PRC contributed to the Mujihadeen because the Soviets were seen as being as imperialistic as the Americans. Is that supposed to somehow explain why they sided with CIA backed Islamist insurgents and make their support for the Mujihadeen "less imperialist"?

[gorillafuck]

Putting things in quotes means you are quoting someone. However noone said "less imperialist". In an inter-imperialist conflict, there is no less or more imperialist. Its qualitative.
Then how does the idea that the USSR was imperialist have any bearing on PRC support for the mujihadeen?