How Krushchiev revisionism ruined more than just the USSR

This is an article written by Harry Haywood, a member of the CPUSA and the Comintern. In this article he blames the degeneration of the CPUSA in the 50's on the soviet revisionism and how it spread like a plague throughout the CPUSA and allowed for rightist opportunism to rise. I'm hoping we can discuss it a bit.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hayw...76/x01/x01.htm

Just one thought of mine to get things going, I think this article shows how revisionism really hurt the movement as a whole, and not just Russia.

I absolutely agree with you that Khrushchev's revisionism hurt the Marxist-Leninist international movement. It, in a lot of ways, has bred the eurocommunist reformist parties that we have today claiming that they are Marxist-Leninist.

I absolutely agree with you that Khrushchev's revisionism hurt the Marxist-Leninist international movement. It, in a lot of ways, has bred the eurocommunist reformist parties that we have today claiming that they are Marxist-Leninist.

I agree comrade. Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" and his peaceful coexistence policy did irreparable damage on Marxist-Leninist parties during the 20th century. The article show's just how devastating his revisionism was to the communist movement.

Yes, Khrushchev led to the worst split in the Communist movement. First between the (revisionist) Soviet-Union and Albania/China and later (something I still see as a result of Khruschev's actions, in a way) between Albania and China.
But those splits not only devided those countries but also Communist parties all over the world that "had" to pick a side.

Yes, Khrushchev led to the worst split in the Communist movement. First between the (revisionist) Soviet-Union and Albania/China and later (something I still see as a result of Khruschev's actions, in a way) between Albania and China.
But those splits not only devided those countries but also Communist parties all over the world that "had" to pick a side.

The split did cause division amongst communist parties throughout the world, but I believe that the split was necessary to break off from the Khruschevite revisionism. When Khruschev started to pursue the whole "peaceful coexistence" strategy, he completely abandoned Marxist revolutionary theory and opted for bourgeois tactics, i.e. parliamentary change within, "beating" the west in "consumer goods," etc. The USSR stopped actively supporting revolutionary movements globally after that point and called for communist parties to abandon that method. The split did cause people to choose sides, but it was necessary for the survival of revolutionary communist movements, especially after all the major pro-USSR parties started to mold into reformist social democrats only calling for "Change from within." Eurocommunism is the bastard offspring of Khruschev's policies, and we still have to contend with their revisionism to this day.

I think the most important and problematic feature of Khrushchev's revisionism was the "secret speech" denunciation of the legacy of comrade Stalin; this gave all sorts of reactionaries and liberals a scape-goat in whose distorted image Marxism-Leninism should from then on be seen. It gave another round of ammunition to the enemies of Marxism-Leninism to shoot us with: they would distance us from the working class who of course would dislike being associated with a "murderous dictator". Krushchev in this regard is as bad, in fact worse, than all the liars like Conquest who were paid to spread anti-Communist propaganda.

The split did cause division amongst communist parties throughout the world, but I believe that the split was necessary to break off from the Khruschevite revisionism. When Khruschev started to pursue the whole "peaceful coexistence" strategy, he completely abandoned Marxist revolutionary theory and opted for bourgeois tactics, i.e. parliamentary change within, "beating" the west in "consumer goods," etc. The USSR stopped actively supporting revolutionary movements globally after that point and called for communist parties to abandon that method. The split did cause people to choose sides, but it was necessary for the survival of revolutionary communist movements, especially after all the major pro-USSR parties started to mold into reformist social democrats only calling for "Change from within." Eurocommunism is the bastard offspring of Khruschev's policies, and we still have to contend with their revisionism to this day.

Of course, that is why the thread is called "how cruised ruined more than the ussr", he ruined the unity amongst the communists of the world.

An interesting read for sure.