It is important to learn the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Harpal Brar, Chairman of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), in this series of 11 videos, gives a talk on the destructive role of Khrushchevite Revisionism at a party Study School held in Leeds. These videos are an excellent contribution to the summation of these experiences. Basically an outline and overview of the Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement, but with the view from today, these videos serve well the purpose helping to popularize that seminal work of the anti-revisionist movement. The CPGB-ML has also released these videos on China.
For more on all of this, I would also suggest that my readers look to the Communist Party of China’s very important article from the Polemic on the General Line, On Khrushchev’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World as well as to my recent article, Some Points on Stalin (and Mao). In my opinion, the most concise summation is the 1999 Declaration of the International Communist Movement.
The Marxist-Leninist 
The most important lesson of “the polemic” is that as communist you will defend the socialist countrys against the attacks of imperialism, so OK for the campaign “hands off socialist China”. But you are NOT a communist as you fight NOT against the revisionist line that rules at this moment the CPC.
I will analyse on my weblog how Deng Xiaoping managed to erase out of the collective memory of the chinese people and apparently of a big part of the party members and cadres the essentials of “the polemic” (it was led by Deng Xiaoping in the sixties!) So he could implement his revisionist policy of “reform and opening”. It has the elements against which the CPC in 1963 (and Deng Xiaoping himself at that moment, leading the discussion with the CPUSSR) took position.
So NOW the leaders of the CPC, under impuls of Deng Xiaoping in 1978, are defending a revisonist policy against which the CPC itself took position in 1963. Study for example:
“IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY? Third Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (September 26, 1963 )”, on marx2mao
The USSR under Kruchov was still socialist, even under Breznjev. But revisionism led to a restore of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the USSR….
The danger of an installation of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in China is big, when the struggle between two lines will not be fought.
I’m not sure how it’s logical for a businessman to support a socialist country that is smashing poverty, defending against imperialism, strengthening unions, mobilizing its entire country to rescue people from natural disasters, getting rid of healthcare fees in rural areas, investing massive amounts of money in infrastructure, increasing the life expectancy of average people, and increasing the study of Marxism-Leninism.
Maybe someone can explain that to me.
[Admin Note: Brian is making reference to a comment that has been removed because it contained nothing but a personal attack. See the comments policy.]
Thanks for posting the videos of CPGB-ML Study School. In comradeship. Inquilab Zindabad!
Nico, Ill concede the Soviet Union under Khrushchev was still a socialist nation despite being under obvious control of a revisionist. However, I do not consider Titoite Yugoslavia and his “Market Socialism” or the USSR from the last days of Khrushchev to Gorbachev to have been socialist; these can be backed up by works by other Marxists in the books “Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR” by Martin Nicolaus
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html
and Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union by Bill Bland
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/hoxha/bland/index.html
The Chinese policy to the USSR, was as I see it correct, but for the wrong reasons; mainly because the Chinese were guilty of the same charge they gave the Soviets. I do not consider China to have EVER taken the step to building a socialist economy; with probably the exception of the Great Leap Forward; “New Democracy” was a total sham. Antoinetta Macciocci in her book Daily Life in Revolutionary China, while being pro-mao, does show via the chinese admittance from a report given by Lin Biao that its economy was only socialist in name; the bourgeosie recieved up to 1/4 of the total earnings of industry despite only making up a small fraction of society. The same thing with “New Democracy” which somehow liked to tout itself as some “New Economic policy” in that it was a temporary move to stabilize China, but temporary as in spanning 20 years?!?! Proponents of Chinese New Democracy can’t even compare it to the NEP which lasted a mere 7 years and was no where on the scale of welcoming capitalism in industry, and agriculture which by the 70s had become ingrained in China. The CCP’s policy on some issues like Tito especially is a schizophrenic one, at first Mao said he was a socialist and the only one to blame for Tito’s departure from the USSR was Stalin, then he said Stalin was right, that Tito was a reactionary and “should be killed”, and then he invited him to China!
-A.J.
A.J.,
I don’t think its particularly pertinent to this topic, but since you brought it up, you do realize that Mao said from the very beginning that New Democracy was a bourgeois-democratic revolution of a new type, suitable to the oppressed nations during the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution? It is a revolution led by the proletariat; allied with the national bourgeoisie, the peasantry, and the urban petty bourgeoisie; and targeting the big landlords and compradore bourgeoisie. Essentially, it is the first part of a two-stage revolutionary process: a capitalist revolution targetting imperialism and feudalism, in order to clear the way and build the conditions for the socialist revolution. So they never actually even claimed to be doing socialist construction until the mid 1950s.
Far from a “sham”, the theory of New Democracy was put forward very openly by the Chinese CP. Mao’s theory of New Democracy is most clearly explained in The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party.
To compare this process to the NEP in Russia is a little odd. First of all, the Chinese didn’t intend for the New Democratic Revolution to be some sort of Chinese NEP, brought over in this kind of dogmatic, cookie-cutter fashion. Conditions were drastically different. So to hold it against the Chinese comrades that it took longer to set the conditions for socialist construction in semi-colonial, semi-feudal China than in post-Tsarist Russia, the social system of which Lenin had characterized as “military-feudal imperialism,” seems like a bit of a stretch.
Hoxha also had (brief) reproachment with Yugoslavia after the 1968 Dubcek counterrevolution, which Hoxha in all his wisdom had the exact same position as the ‘evil’ Tito and Mao on. I find it hard believing that only Albania ever pursued correct policies, and yet still its socialist system imploded after only a handful of years of revisionism and it has become the worst of mafia states in Southeast Europe, with poor living standards. Hoxha also had a hand in whipping up fascist nationalism in Kosovo.
All this anti-Yugoslav hatred from the Albanian Labor Party despite the fact that Tito defended the honor of Hoxha and Albania in his discussions with Stalin, who considered Hoxha a petty bourgeois nationalist (he was absolutely right). There wouldn’t even have been an Albanian Communist party if it wasn’t for ‘evil’ Tito and the Yugoslav Communists, who founded it. Of course when this was mentioned to Hoxha, he was fond of using racist epithets (calling people Serbian dogs and such).
To AJ Herrera and comradezero
Indeed the “New Democrazy” was not socialism. It was the stage of the national democratic revolution, the maximum of result that was possible in the antiimperialist struggle, first against the occupation of the Japanese fascist regime (at that moment the antiimperialist struggle was a part of a worldwide united front against fascism). Than it was against Chang Kai Chek who was supported by American imperialism.
One of the points of the national democratic revolution was land reform. By realising that point of the program of the national democratic revolution, the peasants were beginning (under impuls of communists peasants living among them) to build cooperatives. It was a class struggle against the rich landowners and a ideological “class struggle” (of discussion and of showing that the cooperatives of poor peasants were working better than groups of richer peasants who worked more or less together but remained competitors for each other). Read the history of Datchai and other cooperatives later “melting together” into communes….. (William Hinton wrote books about this)
At that time the point of view of Lui Chaochi was of “consolidation of the New Democracy” and for example protecting the rich peasants (because they had at that moment the biggest production – so a pragmatic point of view). The point of view of Mao Zedong was going as fast as possible (as fast as the greatest part of the poor peasants and workers want to go) from the “new democrazy” to socialism. The Great Leap Forward was that transition. Of course persons (even in the communist party) who had a antiimperialist or radical but bourgeois classpoint (like Lui Chaochi, perhaps you can compare him with Boucharin) judged that the “socialisation” was “utopian”, “agrarian socialist” or “ left opportunism”…… Just what Deng Xiaoping says in the eighties about the Great Leap Forward…. long after the dead of Mao Zedong.
Deng Xiaoping rehabilitated Lui Chaochi and said that Mao Zedong was “a great marxistleninist” but with “leftist mistakes” (by starting the Great Leap Forward and by starting the Cultural Revolution)
My judgment of the policy of Deng Xiaoping is that he want to REVERSE the evolution to socialism back to the situation of the national democratic revolution…. And that is what I think is still happening now in China.
For the rest I will study more on your suggested texts to see if I have to nuance my opinion. About the contradiction between Hoxha and Tito, and how Stalin and Mao Zedong are involved I cannot say much at this moment.
Comrade Zero, you said
“First of all, the Chinese didn’t intend for the New Democratic Revolution to be some sort of Chinese NEP, brought over in this kind of dogmatic, cookie-cutter fashion.”
Firstly, rather than me misrepresenting the Chinese position, this was EXACTLY the Chinese rationale for New Democracy, mostly from the failure of the Great Leap Forward. Correct, I object to the comparison of the NEP to New Democracy; but its not the opponents of New Democracy who are critical, as being guilty of being “dogmatic cookie cutters” but the Chinese themselves and their supporters who are the ones who compare the Chinese New Democracy to Lenin’s NEP; indeed Harpal Brar’s 10 Reasons to Support China even make this comparison; indeed this has been documented in Robert North’s Book “The NEP and New Democracy”.
@ Brian
you said:
“Hoxha also had (brief) reproachment with Yugoslavia after the 1968 Dubcek counterrevolution, which Hoxha in all his wisdom had the exact same position as the ‘evil’ Tito and Mao on.”
Hoxha had numerous reproachments with Yugoslavia the last being in the late 80s, these were mostly trade deals; never once did Hoxha say Tito wasn’t a Yugoslav chauvinist; if you want to call this “reproachment” then by means go ahead; but we cannot even compare this “reproachment” to Tito’s REAL reproachment, or rather “non aligndedness” with the likes of South American reactionaries, Nixon, and Jimmy Carter.
“I find it hard believing that only Albania ever pursued correct policies, and yet still its socialist system imploded after only a handful of years of revisionism”
I find that ironic considering the fact that Hoxha retired back in 1981, and revisionism did not even show its face until 1990 when strong arm purges by Alia purged all the local party leaders and ALL the ministers of the state. Alia had only 4 supporters in the Politburo out of 15; the remaning 11 were purged by 1990. Now I never said Albania was perfect, in fact they began to reverse some of their more extreme policies in the 1980s with opening up to the world, in 1968 Hoxha unfortunately reversed himself in allowing more intra-party democracy; mostly because he feared the blatant Soviet imperialism shown in its invasion of Czechoslovakia. We can blame the Yugoslav collapse however primarily on Tito’s whoring to the west and the Billions of loans he took which he could never pay back.
“and it has become the worst of mafia states in Southeast Europe, with poor living standards.”
First, where have you been? the Balkans have ALWAYS been the worst mafia and drug states, Hoxha had abolished drug addiction and prostitution and now you want to blame him for that? Secondly, the poor living standards were always the case of Albania which was the most backward state in Europe; that was ALWAYS dominated by foreign powers. In order to successfully view the verdict of Hoxha in Albania you have to realize what it was before and then what it became in the Hoxha years; pre-Hoxha days were marked by the blood feud, the sexist code of Leka Dukagjini, and extreme poverty; Albanian savings during the Hoxha years were the highest in the Balkans and it was all wiped away by the Pyramid crisis in the 1990s.
“Hoxha also had a hand in whipping up fascist nationalism in Kosovo.”
Firstly, the Kosovar Albanian people had every right to secede from Yugoslavia and form up with Albania, to deny them that right is pure chauvinism and disrespect for national rights. Even Tito conceded this fact “Kosova belonged to Albania but due to strong Serb opposition, to transfer it then would be inopportune.” Do we need to get in the specifics of the hard life for Kosovars in “socialist” Yugoslavia? Well for starters the disproportionate instances of Kosovar prisoners, the dismal life expectancy, lets see the overall Yugoslav unemployment rate in 1985 stood at 13% overall; among the Kosovars it stood at a whopping 30%; with inflation at 57%.
“who considered Hoxha a petty bourgeois nationalist (he was absolutely right).”
I have never heard this, I have another text showing a Yugoslav saying this and I have the full text right here; Stalin never called Hoxha a “petty-bourgeois” it was Edward Kardelj and I have the text here from his book Tito.
Stalin: Do you know Enver well? What is your opinion of him? Is he a consistent man? Will he remain with us to the end?
Kardelj: “Our opinion is that he is a good and honest on the whole, although he has certain characteristics of a petty-bourgeois intellectual. He has a good war record and the people love him. But he lacks Marxist-Leninist training…But we consider that the best and most consistent man over there is Koci Xoxe, a worker, although he also lacks training.
Funny the Yugoslavs picked one of their most die-hard Albanian collaborationists as who they felt as the most “consistent”.
“There wouldn’t even have been an Albanian Communist party if it wasn’t for ‘evil’ Tito and the Yugoslav Communists, who founded it.”
First off it was Hoxha who took the initiative in forming the communist party of Albania; it was Hoxha alone who was the one who united the 4 squabbling Communist groups in 1941 in Tirana and elected as their General-Secretary through consensus. The Yugoslav role was through funding weapons to the Albanians but not one single Yugoslav Communist went into the soil to liberate Albania; funny thing is that the Albanians were actually the ones who helped liberate Yugoslavia; if Tito is at “cause” for giving birth to the Albanian Communist Party (which hes not) then Tito is the cause of the destruction of the Yugoslav Communist Party; which ceased to exist under Tito’s leadership literally and figuratively.
“Of course when this was mentioned to Hoxha, he was fond of using racist epithets (calling people Serbian dogs and such).”
I would like documentation of this, and it to be placed in context. Calling someone a “dog” is used mostly as an insult than having racial connotations; Hoxha once remarked that he would like to see an Albanian spy who fled to Yugoslavia “hung like a dog, in the middle of Tirana”, he also said Mehmet Shehu was “buried like a dog”. Not the most tolerant man to his enemies, ill concede that, but no where have I ever heard “dog” used as a racial epithet; rather that the REAL epithets Khrushchev and company made to Mao Zedong calling him an old galosh, referred to the Chinese as a “yellow peril” and that they were so poor they had one shirt to ever two men.
AJ writes:
Are you saying here that the theory and practice of the New Democratic Revolution comes from the summation of the Great Leap Forward???
Now, maybe I’m mixed up, but I don’t see how this really works. The main documents that theorize New Democracy by Mao, On New Democracy (1940) and The Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communist Party (1939), and the New Democratic period itself (1949-1956) precede the Great Leap Forward, which began in 1958. How is it that a theory and a process that precedes a later process is actually based on the process that comes after it? Was the Great Leap Forward such a great leap that they invented time machines, went back in time, and based on the summation of events not yet taken place developed their revolutionary strategy?
Herrera also writes,
The reference to the NEP in the “10 reasons to support China” document is in reference to the Socialist Reform period that began in 1978, not the New Democratic period that went from 1949 to 1956. So I think you are confused on that point. Maybe your confusion on this point sheds some light on your confusion regarding Chinese history and the theory that is connected to it. As for the comparison of the NEP to the Socialist Reform period that actually is made in that document, I’m not sure its such a good analogy anyway, but there it is. Now I’ve never read Robert North’s book (are you referring to his 1951 article in Pacific Affairs?), and I admit that I actually don’t even know who Robert North is or why what he writes is relevant. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reference in either of Mao’s major writings on New Democracy (cited above) to the NEP.
On another note, neither this discussion of New Democracy nor the discussion of Yugoslavia and Hoxha really have anything to do with this topic (Krushchevite Revisionism and the collapse of the Soviet Union) so I’d like to see if we can get the discussion back on topic (perhaps for the first time) and off of this tangent.
The “plight” of the ‘Kosovar’ Albanians? All of them lived better than Albanians in Albania. Sure they may have had a higher unemployment rate, that’s because the region was the most backward of all of Yugoslavia to begin with. Like you said, we have to consider the starting conditions. 70% of the Serbian Socialist Republic’s budget went to developing Kosovo. Kosovo Albanians had schools and newspapers in their own language, their own cultural centers, they also elected their own police. Do you think minority nationalities had any of those rights in Albania? Rather they hung Greeks as spies whenever they got the chance.
This is why I don’t even consider Hoxhaists Marxist-Leninists, when they think the fascist KLA, the self-proclaimed successor to the openly pro-Nazi Balli Kombetar to be a manifestation of the supposed “legitimate” right to self-determination. The only reason Kosovo Albanians became the majority in Kosovo is because Serbs were driven out by Albanian Nazis and Tito didn’t allow Serbs to return to their homes. Since Kosovo Albanians have taken over, with the help of your friends the NATO imperialists and bombing of Serbia’s churches, schools, hospitals, bridges and factories, national minorities have been ethnically cleansed. Mussolini’s dream of a fascist ethnically pure Greater Albania is being realized.
Kosovo is the birthplace of the Serbian nation. It contains 1800 medieval Orthodox churches and monasteries (many of which have since been desecrated and destroyed by your fascist KLA friends). “Kosova” has no meaning in the Albanian language. Kosovo derives from the Serbian word “Kos”, meaning blackbird. No such word exists in Albanian. Kosovo Albanian “self-determination” is based on fascism and ethnic cleansing. How many thousands of Roma have been driven out and put in camps since the KLA took over? Gorani? 300,000 Serbs have been driven out. This is “self-determination” according to Hoxhaists. Look at their damn flag. It’s an EU flag. That’s because they owe their very existence to western imperialism and fascism.
As for Harpal Brar’s attacks on revisionism, they don’t really make much sense. If he maintains China is a socialist country, he then has to explain why revisionism has not yet resulted in the overthrow of socialism even 18 years after the fall of the USSR in China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. The two-line struggle doesn’t wash. There was no anti-revisionist line being advocated in the Chinese Politburo during the years of Jiang Zemin. No one was calling for the return to the policies of Mao Zedong. If the line does exist, it’s not in the Politburo but perhaps in the Central Committee, and it’s not a very influential one.
I don’t understand why Khrushchov and Brezhnev’s errors are considered so threatening to socialism, but Mao’s errors (of aligning with imperialism against the USSR) are glossed over. Surely China and the imperialists arming mujahadeen to fight the Soviets had a hand in the Soviet Union collapsing. At the very least, it did not help consolidate socialism. I know Mao says that the internal development of a thing is always primary, but the fact is spending large amounts of resources on military defense puts a serious strain on economic and social development that cannot be denied.
In general, I find attacking the Soviet Union and other socialist states for 35-40 years of their existence to be a sectarian, and not very useful exercise. Errors were made, but they did a lot of good things too. We have to decide whether their achievements or errors were primary. It is my view that their achievements were primary, while serious and damaging errors were made.
Brian,
My understanding of Chinese politics in the Socialist Reform period isn’t perfect, but I’ll put forward my views anyway, in the hopes of improving the conversation.
I think it is basically clear that the Chinese CP saw where Gorbachev was heading and that the 1989 counter-revolutionary “democracy” movement brought this home to them. This is discussed plainly throughout Volume III of Deng Xiaoping’s Selected Works. As to the two-line struggle, at that time the principal contradiction within the Chinese CP was clearly the contradiction between (1) the ultra-right, led by Zhao Ziyang, then General Secretary of the Chinese CP, bolstered by Gorbachevism in the USSR, who advocated bourgeois liberalization and complete capitalist restoration, and (2) the status quo, represented by Deng Xiaoping’s group, who was then Chairman of the Central Military Commisssion, who advocated the continuation of the Socialist Reform movement and upholding the Four Cardinal Principles. The anti-revisionists, represented by Hua Guofeng and whatever allies he had left, had indeed been completely isolated by 1978. Hua was indeed removed from the Politbureau in 1982 and replaced by Zhao Ziyang, though Hua remained a Central Committee member until 2002. Of course there is still an anti-revisionist movement in China advocating a “return to Mao Zedong Thought,” such as the group that came into the open in the letter of recommendations for the 17th Party Congress following the “black brick kiln” incident.
As for Harpal Brar’s views on the restoration of capitalism in the USSR that are put forward in this video, they basically outline the Polemic on the General Line, which I think speaks for itself. Beyond that, and as to how it relates to an evaluation of China as still fundamentally socialist today, I refer to what I said above. I think the points put forward in the videos here are also extremely similar to the views of Freedom Road on the matter, which I support.
I’m not going to weigh in on all of this stuff about Yugoslavia and Albania, because I don’t have a clear understanding of it all. No investigation, no right to speak! Also, I’m in favor, as I said before, of moving away from the subject as it is terribly off topic.
Brian your characterization of the Kosovar-Albanian people as “nazis” is something I would expect from a Serbian conspiracy theorist, very similar to the attitude I meet among Russians about these same exact conspiracies not a supposed Marxist-Leninist but I digress. Rammadan Marmalluka a Kosovar wrote a book back in the 70s titled Albania and the Albanians he wrote about the plight of the Kosovars which you seem to mock which was marked by whole families under seige from the crazies in their own community marked by the passivity of the “socialist” government in Yugoslavia. The government in Yugoslavia made absolutely ZERO attempts to rid itself of the blood feud which plagued Albanian culture for centuries; nothing. Now for the “Serbian nation” being created in Kosovo in the 18th Century; this means nothing especially since these areas were all native to the Illyrian. Albanoi, and Arberesh people since ancient times who were the ancestors of the present Shqiptars(Albanians) and Arberesh people; they outdated these Churches built in the 1700s by centuries. You chose to use the KLA, a fascist army as terms for “my” support of self-deterination of the Kosovars(not in the least); and a red herring to mussolini to support your claimes. What you do not mention is various progressive and revolutionary groups such as Partija Rada who support the right of Kosovo to be returned to Albania. Now do I think this should be the case now? No, Kosovo serves imperialism; but your glossing over of atrocities carried out by Milosovic is appaling the KLA werent the only bastards in that conflict, the former Yugoslav govt. and its leaders are also soaked in the blood of Bosnians and ethnic albanians. and btw NATO is not my “friend”, I consider that extremely offensive for someone to say and you might as well toss in Hitler there as well; that is how offensive I think it is.
Now returning to the topic of Khrushchev’s errors. I do not think it is at ALL “sectarian” to criticize the revisionist and social-imperialist USSR; because that is EXACTLY what it was. Is that what people think was socialist? Sure the revisionist USSR was better than what former Soviet peoples have NOW, but this does not mean ANYTHING in terms of it being socialist. Seriously, Pepsi Cola and Titoite “market socialism” were rampant in the USSR.
Oy, it pains me to have to ignore the nonsense said about Kosovo here, but if anyone reading is interested I’ll send you dozens of links showing you pictures of monasteries that date back much farther than the “1700s” and regal you with stories about the battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389 (the Serbian nation – with Kosovo at its heart – has existed much longer than the 1800s, it existed as a state prior to Ottoman rule). Also the barbaric repression of the Greek minority in Northern Epirus (and elsewhere) leaves any Hoxha apologist with absolute no moral authority whatsoever to complain about national minority rights in Yugoslavia where Kosovo Albanians had veto power over any and all legislation in Serbia since 1971.
The two-line struggle described is but one moment, and as you said, the anti-revisionist line was not prominent. There may well be an anti-revisionist movement in China, but I do not believe its any where near the locus of power. So Freedom Road and others may well say (or at least sign a statement) that revisionism inevitably leads to the restoration of capitalism, and all the USSR and other socialist countries achieved after the death of Stalin was failure after failure, but that does not coincide well with position that China and others remain socialist despite the weakness of anti-revisionists in all of these countries. It also does not coincide well with the position of Harpal Brar and others that China has made many great achievements in the current period, since China surely has deepened revisionism to a far greater extent than was done by Khrushchov.
The history of the USSR in the period of 1953-1956 is an interesting one, since at the time there were three competing groups vying for leadership. Those three groups were led by Khrushchov, Malenkhov, and Beria respectively. Before the secret speech at the 20th congress, out of the three Khrushchov was ironically the most anti-revisionist. Khrushchov was a fawning adorer of Stalin up until Stalin died. Malenkhov was calling for serious economic restructuring. Beria was pushing for East Germany to be reunified and basically under imperialist control, which led to rioting in Berlin in 1953 (he was later severely criticized by everyone for this position). What I’m suggesting here is I’m not sure what other outcome could have occurred, and perhaps the alternatives might have even been worse. If that’s the case, how do we understand what took place in the mid 1950s in the USSR? The changes implemented by the USSR were even initially applauded by China, who no one says was revisionist in 1956.
I reject the point of view that says the USSR and everybody else wasn’t even socialist after 1953, and only Albania was ever socialist after that period of time. The CP Philippines view that was posted here on this blog that says capitalism was restored in the socialist countries except for China and that it was restored in China after Mao died is equally wrong. It is indeed, a sectarian point of view, to write everybody who doesn’t follow a particular line off as a capitalist restorationist. It’s either “all” or “nothing”. That point of view ignores the fact that socialism is a transition phase, that conditions are often difficult which force socialist states to undertake measures to develop the means of production. From the sectarian point of view point of view Lenin was a “restorationist”, Mao was a “restorationist”, and of course even Kim Jong Il is a “restorationist”. The USSR had a planned economy, the commanding heights and the vast vast majority of the economy including the agricultural sector (in most cases)was socialized, human development indicators increased, and people had access to state of the art education and healthcare at no cost. Resources were used for the development of the people, not for any person’s personal profit. The fact that people could drink Pepsi Cola means nothing.
Attacks on socialist (or if you think they were ‘state’ capitalist’) countries and harping on whatever flawed policies were carried out only benefits imperialism, for it means that socialism was by and large a disaster or a failure, except for a brief period of time, or except in one very small country. I think we should celebrate the achievements of socialism.
Brian, you hold that China is socialist and making great achievements, and you say that “China surely has deepened revisionism to a far greater extent than was done by Khrushchov” and yet you seem to be opposed to criticizing revisionism. I agree with a lot of that, though I think it is important to criticize revisionism. And I don’t know if I agree that the Chinese CP’s revisionism is deeper than Khrushchev’s. The Chinese CP up until today has upheld the Four Cardinal Principles whereas the Krushchevite CPSU put forward the anti-Leninist theories of the two wholes and three peacefuls.
That said, when criticizing revisionism, we need to keep in mind something Mao Zedong once said,
“Draw two lines of distinction. First, between revolution and counter-revolution, between Yenan and Sian. Some do not understand that they must draw this line of distinction. For example, when they combat bureaucracy, they speak of Yenan as though “nothing is right” there and fail to make a comparison and distinguish between the bureaucracy in Yenan and the bureaucracy in Sian. This is fundamentally wrong. Secondly, within the revolutionary ranks, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between right and wrong, between achievements and shortcomings and to make clear which of the two is primary and which secondary. For instance, do the achievements amount to 30 per cent or to 70 per cent of the whole? It will not do either to understate or to overstate. We must have a fundamental evaluation of a person’s work and establish whether his achievements amount to 30 per cent and his mistakes to 70 per cent, or vice versa. If his achievements amount to 70 per cent of the whole, then his work should in approve the main. It would be entirely wrong to describe work in which the achievements are primary as work in which the mistakes are primary. In our approach to problems, we must not forget to draw these two lines of distinction, between revolution and counter-revolution and between achievements and shortcomings. We shall be able to handle things well if we bear these two distinctions in mind; otherwise, we shall confuse the nature of the problems. To draw these distinctions well, careful study and analysis are of course necessary. Our attitude towards every person and every matter should be one of analysis and study.”
(Methods of Work of Party Committees)
What I do not agree with is what you are imply by saying revisionism should not be criticized, that is, that revisionism does not lead to the restoration of capitalism, basically saying that revisionism can build socialism just fine. That is just wrong.
Marxism-Leninism is needed to guide the advance towards communism (which is the purpose of socialism). Revisionism can’t do it and must be criticized and eleminated. All is not lost just because revisionists are in power. Revisionists like Liu Shaoqi were in power in China in 1956. Bukharin led the Communist International for a while. But their Rightist lines were eventually exposed and repudiated by the real Marxist-Leninists. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao never hesitated to expose and criticize revisionism.
But how will revisionism lead to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and to the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations? How will revisionism reign in and eventually eleminate bourgoeis right? How will revisionism raise the theoretical level of the Party, the Class, and the broad masses in their understanding of Marxism-Leninism?
I don’t think revisionism can do that. Do you??
I need to clarify a few things. First, I do not believe that “revisionism can build socialism just fine”. There are serious problems with revisionism that should be rectified in order to make progress to the final goal of communism and to defeat imperialism. That final goal cannot be achieved if revisionist policies remain implemented. Some of Khruschov’s actions did lasting damage to the communist movement. However, I do say that revisionism does not inevitably lead to the restoration of capitalism and should not be treated as a counterrevolutionary coup subject to the kind of criticism that imperialism is subject to. We should treat revisionism while we treat other errors of line, with the spirit of unity-struggle-unity. The goal should be improving our work, not tearing other Communists and socialist states down. I agree with the quote you have of Mao. We have to decide which is primary, the achievements or the errors. I believe revisionist errors can ultimately be corrected and revisionist leaders did/do not have the goal of overthrowing socialism, but they don’t because they are constrained by a two-line struggle. If they did have that goal then Deng Xiaoping would have chosen restoration in 1989 and Chinese leaders would choose restoration today.
I must also add that some of the policies “three wholes and two peacefuls” were implemented by Stalin to begin, which leads me to question (especially compared to the policies of Mao’s China) whether they were incorrect or revisionist to begin with.
“Oy, it pains me to have to ignore the nonsense said about Kosovo here, but if anyone reading is interested I’ll send you dozens of links showing you pictures of monasteries that date back much farther than the “1700s” and regal you with stories about the battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389 (the Serbian nation – with Kosovo at its heart – has existed much longer than the 1800s, it existed as a state prior to Ottoman rule).”
What has this to do with anything? I ALREADY provided 3 groups which predated medieval times as beingt direct descendants of the Kosovars and Shqiptars them being the Illyrians and Albanoi. The Illyrians inhabitated these areas since the times of the Romans. Illyrian Roman Emperors include the likes of Diocletian, this is how far back these people inhabited these areas; South Slavs did not even inhabit these areas until the early 8th Century A.D.
“Also the barbaric repression of the Greek minority in Northern Epirus (and elsewhere) leaves any Hoxha apologist with absolute no moral authority whatsoever to complain about national minority rights in Yugoslavia where Kosovo Albanians had veto power over any and all legislation in Serbia since 1971.”
First lets define this “barbaric repression” this “barbaric repression” included teaching Albanian History, Albanian culture,(which btw was the norm inside the Soviet Union as well) and prohibition of the Greek language outside of Northern epicurus(which I do not support). The Albanian constitution guaranteed these people their minority rights and up to 1967 subsidized their religious institutions, if these people could not speak Albanian in court then they were provided with a translator to present their case. The “ethnic repression” you are talking about includes the prohibition of Orthodox Christianity which ALSO included the suppression of Islam, and Catholicism because ever since Turkish times religion was synonymous with nationality; the Greek nation itself encouraged the seperatism of Southern Albanian regions through the affinity of some Albanians and Greek minorities to Orthodox Christianity and the Turkish govt. did this as well with the Muslims. Now I do not think the outlawing of religion was correct and was mostly inspired from Chinese pressure; but to say the closing down of orthodox greek churches was based on ethnicity is fallacious, ALL religion was suppressed. Secondly, until you provide documentation for your claims that the Communist govt. was hanging Greeks based on racial oppression then you are the only one who should be cited; and I do not recall you are an Albanologist.
Now for your defense of the phony communists in the Soviet Union:
“The USSR had a planned economy..”
WRONG, the USSR by the time of the 1960s was relying on the chaos of the market and taking out loans and encouraging others to take out predatory loans from the capitalist govt. Khrushchev’s reforms were exclusively to abandon central planning.
“These shortcomings in economic management should be eliminated not by making planning more complicated, more detailed and more centralised, but by developing the economic initiative and independence of enterprises —Enterprises must be given broader initiative; they must not be bound by petty tutelage and bureaucratic methods of planning from the centre”.
(E.G. Liberman: “Cost Accounting and Material Encouragement of Industrial Personnel”, in: “Voprosy Ekonomiki” (Problems of Economics), No 6, 1955, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1; p.7).
All other indices of economic activity will be planned by the enterprise independently, without endorsement from a higher organisation”.
(A.N. Kosygin: “On Improving Industrial Management, Perfecting Planning and Enhancing Economic Incentives in Industrial Production”, in: “Izvestia” (News), September 28th., 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Voume 2; p. 18-19)
“Resources were used for the development of the people, not for any person’s personal profit. The fact that people could drink Pepsi Cola means nothing. ”
Really? well lets continue:
“Profit is formed directly from the difference between the price and cost of production”.
(L. Gatovsky: “The Role of Profit in a Socialist Economy”, in: “Kommunist” (Communist), no. 18, 1962, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): “Planning, Profit and Incentives in the USSR”, Volume 1; New York; 1966; p. 98).
“We must elevate the importance of profit and profitability”.
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the CPSU, 22nd.
and lets continue under the supposed “anti-Revisionist” Brezhnev:
“Let us consider profit, one of the economic instruments of socialism. A considerable enhancement of its role in socialist economy is an indispensible requisite for cost accounting”.
(Editorial: “Economic Policy and the Work of Communism”, in: “Pravda” (Truth), January 14th., 1966, in: “The Soviet Economic Reform: Main Features and Aims”; Moscow; 1967; p.11).
That part of profit which remains at the disposal of the enterprise’s director for purposes of collective and individual incentive.. must be increased”
(V. Shkatov: “What is Useful for the Country is Profitable for Everyone”, in: “Pravda” (Truth), September 1st., 1964, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1; p. 203).
“It is necessary to leave to the enterprises more of their profits”.
(A.N. Kosygin: “On Improving Industrial Management, Perfecting Planing and Enhancing Economic Incentives in Industrial Production”, in: “Izvestia” (News), September 28th., 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Voume 2; p. 21).
The average proportion of an enterprise’s profit retained by the enterprise rose between 1966 and 1969 as follows:
1966: 26%
1967: 29%
1968: 33%
1969: 40%
(N.Y. Drogichinsky: “The Economic Reform in Action”, in: “Soviet Economic Reform: Progress and Problems””, Moscow; 1972; p. 207).
Yes the Soviet Union could not fully attack some institutions but what should we celebrate their new unemployment? or rather excuse me “labor surplus”, falling of wages, actual adoption of internal market mechanisms? you name it. Pepsi cola itself is not the means for restoration of capitalism but the introduction of foreign business and foreign loans inside the Soviet economy is marks of the worst kind of revisionism; along with predatory wars.
“Attacks on socialist (or if you think they were ’state’ capitalist’) countries and harping on whatever flawed policies were carried out only benefits imperialism, for it means that socialism was by and large a disaster or a failure, except for a brief period of time, or except in one very small country. I think we should celebrate the achievements of socialism.”
No, what you are proposing is that we call phoneys like Tito and Brezhnev socialists; really whats next? Juan Peron? Brian Moore of the SP-USA? Deng Xiaoping? Gorbachev?! It is absolutely ridiculous to say those types are in any way socialist. Also its not serving imperialism when these types themselves are collaborators of imperialism; it was not the first time the USSR teamed up with the United States in destroying nations like they did in Iran when they both armed Sadaam Hussein; or when they actually supported the war against him in the First Gulf War. Heh Tito himself after his expulsion from the COMINFORM while leading the “non-aligned movement” made deal with imperialist states in Europe, took their loans, which he was never able to pay; and was the first(rather than post-Mao China) to negotiate aqnd trade with the worst anti-communist leaders in South America.
What are we supposed to believe that Gorbachev’s “reforms” were the start of the slippery slope to the collapse of the USSR? Or that only Khrushchev is at fault? Gorbachev merely sharpened what was already going on; the abandonement of central planning for “market socialism” went on since the 1960s.
Brian,
Thanks for the clearification. I have a lot of unity with your last comment on this post. Maybe you have been misunderstanding me all this time, maybe I have misunderstood you, or maybe we haven’t expressed ourselves very well.
So I will clearify some things too.
The USSR fell in 1991. We need to draw lessons from that. There is absolutely no issue here of our undermining the USSR by criticizing it at this particular historical moment, when it no longer exists. It is there for us to learn from. So I think we should be very precise and clear in our thinking about that.
I also don’t think revisionists coming to power amounts to a “counterrevolutionary coup”. I’ve never said that, though it is true that some groups do. Maybe our friend A.J. here thinks something like that happened.
For myself, I’ve always said that revisionism came to dominate the CPSU with Khrushchev’s ascendency to power, and that over time that revisionism played the determining role in the complete collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union that took place in 1991. This happened because it was never successfully exposed and repudiated by the CPSU and the Soviet working class.
What about the socialist countries that are still standing and that are under attack? Haven’t I always drawn the correct distinctions “between Yenan and Sian” and between achievements and shortcomings, as Mao says? I think Mao did this as well, and this is the way the Polemic on the General Line goes about things overall. Later on when Lin Biao and the Gang of Four played a greater role the polemics were not of the character of “unity-struggle-unity” but of “ruthless struggle and merciless blows”. I won’t defend that. I don’t hold the social-fascism/social-imperalism line on the USSR. That is not a view I support. You won’t find it in the Polemic on the General Line and you won’t find it in the 1999 Declaration that I mentioned above.
It isn’t that revisionist leaders necessarily have the goal of “overthrowing socialism”. It is that revisionism as an ideology and line seeks to build and consolidate capitalism within the socialist system. Objectively, revisionism undermines socialism because instead of restricting bourgeois right, it consolidates it. Instead of leading to the abolition of class distinctions generally, it deepens them. Instead of working towards the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, it enforces those relations of production. Instead of abolishing all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, it formalizes and strenthens these social relations. Instead of revolutionising all the ideas that result from these social relations, it bolsters and promotes those old ideas.
Revisionism isn’t just a block in the way on the socialist road that you can wait around and move when it is convinent. On the contrary, it actively moves society on the capitalist road. This is what is meant by the struggle between two lines and two roads. It is not as black and white as you seem to suggest.
Does this view that I am putting foward mean that revisonism “inevitably” leads to capitalist restoration? Yes, and no. I say that it does inevitably lead to capitalist restoration because, quite simply, that is its basic trajectory. But I also say that no because, of course, nothing is inevitable. Revisionists may be removed from power, they may rectify their errors, and the Party’s Marxist-Leninist line may be restored. Certainly that is possible and preferable.
Mao seemed to think this was possible since he said Liu Shaoqi should be allowed to correct his mistakes. Similarly, the Chinese Polemic stresses principled Marxist-Leninist unity again and again.
To Brian and Comradezero,
In think that it is important to give a definition of what revisionism really is.
Revisionism, for me, is the line of the bourgeosie INSIDE the organisation that leads and mobilise for revolution and the building of communism (through the passage of socialism – the first stage of communism – where rests of capitalism still exists).
The line of the bourgeoisie is: no expropriation of capitalists, hold the capitalist production relations, protect the further existence of capitalism, make of communism an utopian non-realist idea.
The bourgoisie struggles WITH ALL MEANS, against the working class which is fighting against capitalism wherever in the world,:
-war
-embargo
-repression/ forms of fascism
-political and ideological desinformation
-….
And when that is not succeeding ( and the bourgoisie did not succeed, with those means, in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Corea,…): INFILTRATE (with persons when that is possible- otherwise by influencing ideologically inside lines, persons, factions) IN the revolutionary leading group and fight for the winning of the pro-capitalist bourgeois line. This is done with strategy and tactics, for example making from the revolutionary line with pseudo-marxist arguments a “left”, “utopian” line, and withe pseudo-marxist arguing for a in fact, in the long run, a “capitalist-restoring” line.
Revisionism is a CONSCIOUS line developed by Kautsky-like “renegades”. Revisionism is using, promoting, and building on existing forms of OPPORTUNISM (non correct use of marxism, -by lack of good knowledgs or not defining your correct class point of view when starting your analyse)
The CONTENT of revisionist conceptions and opportunist conceptions are sometimes the same, but the big difference is that revisionism is a CONSCIOUS misleading line developed by members of that revolutionary organisation but who have chosen for the bourgeosie.
The goal of opportunists is not “restoring capitalism”, the goal of revisionist is at the final end “restoring capitalism”. A revolutionary organisations has to free intself, and their members of opportunism (mostly by non-antagonistic struggle). The struggle against the defined revisionist line and their “conscious developpers” is a antagonist struggle (but by trying to hold the greatest possible unity of people (members and not-members) who are conscious of the content of the revolutionary line AND that of the opposed revisionist line.
Comradezero you said
“I also don’t think revisionists coming to power amounts to a “counterrevolutionary coup”. I’ve never said that, though it is true that some groups do. Maybe our friend A.J. here thinks something like that happened.”
Ill make myself clear, these are not the cases for ALL revisionists although there are instances of this happening the one that comes to mind is Afghanistan in which Hafizullah Amin was assasinated by the KGB. Do we really honestly believe Amin was an American spy? If so why did they reverse his revolutionary policies? Amin’s policies were meant to curb Islamic fundamentalism, allow women more freedom, and more workers rights. Islamic fundamentalism was strengthened when the USSR attacked the Afghani president and killed him and destabilized the nation. Revisionism is not at times directly counterrevolutionary(although in instances like Afghanistan it WAS) but its certainly impotent, it cannot lead revolutions, and it is totally useless; the pro-soviet parties in europe and america are proof to that. Now for Ludo Martens and Harpal Brar, two men I deeply respect for their anti-revisionism and Marxism, but their assertion that the USSR was non social-imperialist they give absolutely no credible arguments against it; in fact from what I read from them I get the impression that they are merely saying that in bouts of self-delusion to try to portray the Soviets as something better than it really was which was stagnant, anti-semitic, anti-woman and treated its allies like crap and pawns instead of equals. They never really go into the economics of the Soviet Union or its unfair trade policies or reactionary foreign policy; they forced by threat of invasion on the eastern bloc to comply with revisionism kicking out leaders in Bulgaria and Hungary; and when leaders resisted they tried to kill them; Khrushchev even tried to assasinate Kim Il Sung, tried just like Tito to turn Albania into a place where they could get all their citrus fruits, and made up their phony “international socialist division of labor” which was used to stop nations like cuba from industrializing or diversifying their economies; which made them suffer after it collapsed. Brar’s policies on how China is “still” socialist is just even more so outrageous, he really might as well call Sweden or Norway socialist. It truly is self-delusional.
To Comradezero, Brian and A.J. Herrerra.
I think the discussion is developing wrong:
Brian says:” First, I do not believe that “revisionism can build socialism just fine”. There are serious problems with revisionism that should be rectified”
Conradezero: answers:” I also don’t think revisionists coming to power amounts to a “counterrevolutionary coup… It isn’t that revisionist leaders necessarily have the goal of “overthrowing socialism”. It is that revisionism as an ideology and line seeks to build and consolidate capitalism within the socialist system… Does this view that I am putting foward mean that revisonism “inevitably” leads to capitalist restoration? Yes, and no. I say that it does inevitably lead to capitalist restoration because, quite simply, that is its basic trajectory. But I also say that no because, of course, nothing is inevitable. Revisionists may be removed from power, they may rectify their errors, and the Party’s Marxist-Leninist line may be restored. Certainly that is possible and preferable.
Mao seemed to think this was possible since he said Liu Shaoqi should be allowed to correct his mistakes.”
Then A.J. Herrera reacts;” Revisionism is not at times directly counterrevolutionary(although in instances like Afghanistan it WAS) but its certainly impotent, it cannot lead revolutions, and it is totally useless; the pro-soviet parties in europe and america are proof to that. Now for Ludo Martens and Harpal Brar, two men I deeply respect for their anti-revisionism and Marxism, but their assertion that the USSR was non social-imperialist they give absolutely no credible arguments against it; in fact from what I read from them I get the impression that they are merely saying that in bouts of self-delusion to try to portray the Soviets as something better than it really was which was stagnant, anti-semitic, anti-woman and treated its allies like crap and pawns instead of equals. They never really go into the economics of the Soviet Union or its unfair trade policies or reactionary foreign policy; …
Brar’s policies on how China is “still” socialist is just even more so outrageous, he really might as well call Sweden or Norway socialist. It truly is self-delusional.”
I think that the discussion, “about the real danger of revisionism and if it had to be treated as a form of serious opportunism that can be dangerous for socialism as it become the leading line in the communist party”, has evoluated to the discussion, “if capitalism was restored under Kruchov or under Gorbatchov or in 1991”.
I don’t know exactly what is Brar’s point of view – although I made a comment on this weblog about the campain “hands off China”.
But the point of view Ludo Martens that defended was:” After the collapse of socialism in the Soviet-Union and the falling apart of the land of Lenin, all communists must understand that revisionism is the most dangerous ideological enemy of marxist-leninism. Revisionism represent without no doubt the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement.” (my translation of a dutch quote out Marxist Studies no 29, 1996-03-01 – see marx.be – I think the text exist in English, I am sure Comradezero can find it – “ About certains aspects of the struggle against revisionsm….”, Ludo Martens)
In his text he give his argued point of view that it is dangerous to treat revisionism as was it just a rather strong form of opportunism. And Ludo thought that there are facts that could prove that Mao Zedong first UNDERESTIMATED the contradiction with revisionism. I think that in that logic I can say that Comradezero (as also Brian as Herrera) made the same UNDERESTIMATION as for example Comradezero sais:” Revisionists may be removed from power, they may rectify their errors, and the Party’s Marxist-Leninist line may be restored. Certainly that is possible and preferable. Mao seemed to think this was possible since he said Liu Shaoqi should be allowed to correct his mistakes.”
Mao had that opinion BEFORE –let say – 1956. But AFTER the uprise in Hongary – and that analysis became stronger and stronger until in the Cultural Revolution that revisionism is a CONSCIOUS BOURGEOIS line developed by persons who changes class-position CONCSCIOUSLY and with whome the communists and the working class had an ANTAGONIST contradiction with.
The danger of opportunism, when the communists and even the working class in power don’t see it or criticize it , that it is possible for the bourgeoisie to developed – based on that opportunist conceptions – a conscious revisionist line and so preparing the change of dictatorship of the proletariat into dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
As under socialism capitalism still exists it is logical that when the revisionists are rulling, the whole economic system, the exterior policy to other countries has already strong capitalist/imperialist aspects, so defining the real turningpoint is matter for discussion – but not the most important discussion.
THE discussion is, I think: Is revisionism, and revisionist (other than forms of opportunsm and opportunists) the bourgeoisie INSIDE the communist movement and how we have to struggle against it?
Hello Brian, I was brought here by others. Nice to see you again.
A note:
“but Mao’s errors (of aligning with imperialism against the USSR) are glossed over. Surely China and the imperialists arming mujahadeen to fight the Soviets had a hand in the Soviet Union collapsing”
This assumes that the mujahidin were all CIA-funded Islamists and secondly assumes that the Soviets deserved to be in Afghanistan to begin with. To my understanding, the two main mujahidin groups were the Islamists (funded by CIA and Deng) and the Maoists (funded by seemingly no one) along with various ethnic-based and other misc. mujahidin. As Hoxha pointed out, a massive resistance à la Vietnam doesn’t just pop up due to money.
The Afghan people didn’t want Soviet imperialism, and it was the Soviets to begin with who urged Hafizullah Amin to ‘moderate’ his policies and when he refused he was shot in the head and Afghanistan became a de facto Soviet puppet.
Not to mention that the Afghan situation was 1979-89, after Mao had died and the pro-US Deng took control. Mao, even though he clearly did bad things (Three Worlds Theory which justified good relations with Zaire and Chile) at least had popularity in the third world precisely because of opposing all imperialism.
Well actually Mrdie what you call “Soviet Imperialism” is probably a backway term to describe what happened in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (and failure to admit that the Maoists in Afghanistan aided the mujhadieen as much as the CIA did, training camps and all.)
Due to the successes of the PDPA, Women were allowed to have govermental posts, to gain education and independent lives. The military of the Afghan army was also increased ten fold (holding back for 10 years a number of 80,000 counter-revolutionaries is no small feat.) With the Soviets giving supplies of fuel, food, ammunition, training camps for specialists (sometimes the KHAD would take on new weapons to produce them themselves or to have for tests). Most information from Soviet aid can come from “Soviet Withdrawl without leaving Chaos: The Soviet Withdrawl of Afghanistan”.
(can be found online).
Mostly I dont particularly get how you call it “Soviet Imperialism” (unless you support the RAWWA pro-monarchy group which wanted the PDPA goverment out to begin with or try to adhere to “social-Imperialism” which was only created as a political move to be agaisnt the Soviet line itself, thus splitting the movement even more and having Communists stand with anti-communists, China snd Zaire are great examples of that.)
To add on to what PolishSoviet stated, I find it odd that Mrdie believes that the “Afghan situation” only lasted from ’79-’89. When in fact it lasted all the way to ’92, a year already after the overthrowing of the Soviet Union.
Fact of the matter is that, after the Soviet’s left back to Russia, they did so in a orderly manner, as a means of understanding they did all they could, & would continue in helping the Marxist government of Afghanistan in their conflict against the US-backed Mujahideen by continuing giving them aid & supplies ’til their unfortunate overthrowing in 1991. After said overthrowing, the PDPA was left to defend itself against the Islamic terrorists, along with the well-funded backing of the US.
Not too long after, we then witnessed the capitalist restoration of Afghanistan, & the overthrowing of the PDPA.
I’d recommend reading “Afghanistan – Washington’s Secret War” by Phillip Bonosky. Along with what PolishSoviet recommended as well, “Soviet Withdrawal Without Leaving Chaos: The Soviet Withdrawal of Afghanistan”.