this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
476 points (99.2% liked)
Socialism
6784 readers
47 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's set everything else aside for a moment and focus solely on the construction of socialism via the "Stalinist path." We will take into account all the errors, miscalculations, and successes involved.
How did Stalin attract investment? Stalin sold priceless paintings from the state-owned Hermitage Museum, thereby effectively bribing American officials and tycoons. Capitalizing on the Weimar Republic's diplomatic isolation, he established trade relations with them. Raw materials were shipped to the Weimar Republic, while technology, equipment, machinery, and machine tools flowed back in return. At that time, Germany was a technologically advanced nation. However, problems arose in the 1930s; Hitler rose to power, and relations between the USSR and Germany were severed. Simultaneously, an unprecedented economic crisis struck. Trade relations with Europe and the USA were all but reduced to zero. As always, the peasants ended up bearing the brunt of the consequences. The 1930s were an incredibly difficult period for the peasantry. There were also miscalculations regarding collectivization—specifically, those that followed the failure of the communes. In case you weren't aware, prior to collectivization, there had been communes established in the villages. That particular approach failed miserably, sparking intense resentment among the peasants. Yet Mao—for some inexplicable reason—chose to emphasize communes rather than kolkhozes (collective farms) during his "Great Leap Forward," completely disregarding Stalin's prior experience.
And do not forget that, running parallel to the processes of collectivization and industrialization, a "Cultural Revolution" was taking place within the USSR. And believe me, Comrade: had Mao orchestrated something similar, China would not have suffered from such a dire shortage of agricultural specialists.
After Mao botched the industrialization, collectivization, and "Cultural Revolution"—and subsequently fell out with the USSR—China was forced to go to the West with cap in hand, begging for aid. Had it not been for American assistance back then, China would have simply collapsed!
Stalin also made errors and mistakes in socialist construction. You are overweighting Mao's mistakes and ignoring the successes under Mao, the establishment and solidification of socialism in China. The modern CPC has learned from both the successes and mistakes of both Stalin and Mao, while the CPSU decayed. As much as I wish the USSR had not dissolved, it did, and we are in the aftermath of such a tragedy.
I'm not arguing.
I can offer my perspective from where I stand—which, as always, is a bit different...
You overestimate Mao’s achievements while underestimating the assistance provided by the USSR.
You always focus on Mao’s post-war accomplishments, yet you fail to mention his contributions during the wars against Japan and in the Civil War—periods when he truly demonstrated the full extent of his capabilities, thereby providing the impetus for the unification of China. This is, undeniably, a monumental achievement on his part. His shortcomings and lack of foresight, however, lay in his incompetence regarding economic theory, as well as his subsequent handling of industrial and agrarian policies.
The abrupt pivot toward the West was not a continuation of Mao’s strategy, but rather a forced measure—a desperate attempt to rescue an economy that had reached a complete dead end. After all, selling one’s soul to the devil is always the very last resort.
I am not undervaluing Mao's work in liberation, on that front I agree. I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao's economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up. The Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy, indeed, but China nevertheless is carrying the banner of socialism forward today.
A comrade forwarded this video to me today.
The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.
I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply took advantage of the situation.
A comrade forwarded me this video today.
The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.
I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply capitalized on the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xVVyS7NtB5k
And this is not the first time I have pointed out your double standards and contradictions!
Why won't you listen to me?
I repeat once again:
The criticism of Joseph Stalin—specifically, of his cult of personality—contained in Khrushchev’s report at the conclusion of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, along with the new Soviet course toward economic development under a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations, provoked Mao Zedong’s displeasure, as he viewed them as running counter to the concept of the "Leninist sword" and to communist ideology as a whole.
By the way, read this too: the CIA had a hand in it as well—the bastards!
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000242669.pdf