Reassessing Nikita Khrushchev

Charles Brown CharlesB at
Wed May 9 07:53:13 MDT 2001

>>> hliu at 05/08/01 05:18PM >>>
Charles, cancer hits even the healthy ones.


Henry, I think that probably K and his group were able to win because there was mass
support for changing some of the Stalinization,  perhaps even more in the Party than
among the working masses, since the Party was treated more harshly by Stalin and his
group's direct actions than the working masses in general were.  In my opinion, it
could not possibly be the best path for all those Party members to die.  Execute
Fruenze ?!  Lets get real. Something had to be screwed up. Even if it was due in
(small) part to German agents, it is a screwup to let German agents in to fool you,
manipulate you by your differences.

There would have to arise a struggle within the Party against such. It's dialectics. K
is probably accurate in saying that Stalin's crimes with of murderous Party purges in
violation of socialist legality and Leninist norms were unforgivable (and some other
bad superlatiive that I can't remember).

So, it was this weakness in Stalin and his group that produced K and his group, like a
tumor growing up on a spot on the body that is beaten and smashed too much in this
health , organism, cancer metaphor.


What is needed is a virus like Bush to keep China back on the socialist path.


CB: I can see the whole development of areas of capitalism in China under CP control
as having a dimension like creating vaccine viruses in petry dishes.  The antibodies
are developed before the  real virulent virus, ClintonBush et al., come in.

The anti-bodies must be the workers. You can't really have workers , proletarians,
without some capitalism.

A problem in the history of the Soviet Union was that the longer time went on without
revolution in Western Europe and the U.S., the less the "working  class" in the SU had
that direct contact with the horribleness of the capitalists. They lose the edge they
get from facing the capitalists at the point of production, that class conscious edge.
Ironically, the fact of being the ruling class in the SU, and not being exploited and
oppressed by capitalists, makes the working class less able to fight the bourgeoisie
in the foreign countries.

I think this also means slower production. There is no basic need to have all the
hellbent rate of production that capitalism whips up. There is no real need to drive
the working class like that. So, naturally production is slower in socialist
countries. Yet , the bourgeoisie are eventually able to use this fact in two important
ways to win the struggle and Cold War with the SU. Both the substantive fact of having
to have masses of hi tech weapons and the appearnce of "lower productivity as relative
poverty" are used against the SU.

I believe the Chinese policy today is based in part on knowing that there must be
_some_ capitalism in China as a necessity of keeping up with productivity rates in the
capitalist world . It is no shame to admit that capitalism produces more furiously
than socialism. Capitalism is producing at a rate of  cancer cells, to use your
metaphor another way. Capitalism overworks the working class. In power, the working
class doesn't work itself so hard. Yet, with capitalism in the world, we have learned
from the experience of  the SU, and perhaps the CP is forced to have some capitalism
to keep up and not get taken over physically by being out produced.  You can certainly
set me straight on my speculation here.


The problem of K was that he underestimated the US at first and then over-estimated
it. His anti-personality cult report in 1956 at the
All-Union Party Congress was the beginning of de-Stalinization which had devastating
effects on the entire Soviet Block. His international politics was both incompetent
and advanturist.  His domestic policy caused the failure of Soviet agriculture.
great blunder was his policy on China.


CB: I agree that the K's worst blunder was the break with China !  I have been meaning
to reiterate more regularly that it was the combination of failure of workers'
revolution in the "advanced " capitalist countries _and_ the break between the SU and
China that caused the failure of the Soviet Union.  These are the main errors that we
must draw lessons from in the first period of building socialism.

Workers of the West, it's our turn . Learn from the workers of the East.


Charles Brown wrote:

> >>> hliu at 05/08/01 04:13PM >>>
> There is a world of difference between Khrushchev and Deng/Jiang.
> Deng/Jiang policies were reactive to a world of little real options while
> Khrushchev open the gate voluntarily.  K was poisoning a health organism,
> while Deng/Jiang were trying to keep a dying patient alive with certain
> compromises.  Without Deng/Jiang policies, China would have gone the way of
> Russia in 1989.
> If K had not introduced revisionism, the US would not have been able to
> split the Socialist block with geopolitics.
> (((((((((((
> CB: Henry, my question of your analysis would be, how would such an individual and
>political trend get to be the Soviet leadership ? It does not seem likely or
>consistent to me that such a backward trend could just takeover in the middle of a
>healthy organism.

More information about the Marxism mailing list