what are the differences between the new economic policy and Deng’s reform and opening up?
The NEP was always meant and assumed to be a very temporary stop gap by anyone who wasn’t named Bukharin. Deng was embarking on a generational project.
The bolsheviks needed a couple of factories uo and running, training for their engineerss and access to technology and resources to rebuild and get them ready to transition to a planned economy. Deng wasn’t going to zag on the zig, this was a much more elaborate and planned approach to reforming the economy.
Also both of them embraced the support of anticommunist and capitalist states to build their economy, but Lenin and the Bolsheviks never accepted themselves engaging in repression of communist movements. This resulted in the foreign partnerships of the NEP breaking down and becoming ineffective, while China steadily benefitted from being the premier trading partner of many capitalist countries.
As with regards to Khruschchev. The thing that matters here is that the CPC is still around and in power and there is no such thing as the soviet union, anything else is sophistry.
The specific levels of mean words uttered about the previous leader is an irrelevant metric, whether liberalised corn growing or dairy farming is the superior plan is pointless. What matters is that the Soviet Union fell
I think it’s reductive to say that Khrushchev’s coup against the establishment and his anti-cult of personality, which was the center of his characterization of his political project early on, means literally nothing or was just “mean words.” Beria was no killed in a secret trial by mean words (or perhaps he was, we can’t say for sure!). Rhetoric does not define the living or dying of a country, but it can be a factor when something that is tremendously important to the culture of a country is either viciously undone or slyly maintained.
Also, you phrase things as though you’re making a hard-nosed assessment, but you’re still isolating variables without any interest in, for example, the starting points of the respective countries, which I think is kind of important.
None of what I say is a sober hard-nosed assessment. I am stating my opinions which are rooted in my own biases and understanding of facts, which include being certifiably mad about the CPCs foreign policy from 1960 until now.
But when I speak of mean words, I speak of the contrast between Dengs repudiation of the cultural revolution with Khruschchev’s secret speech, an often used example of how Khruschchev is bad and Deng is not.
Beria was no killed in a secret trial by mean words
I will shed no tears for Beria.
Everyone from Molotov to Malenkov agreed to.kill the bastard. Unless your contention is that he was the only good member of the politburo and every single accusation and every single testimony about his plans are lies, he clearly made his own bed.
None of what I say is a sober hard-nosed assessment. I am stating my opinions which are rooted in my own biases and understanding of facts, which include being certifiably mad about the CPCs foreign policy from 1960 until now.
I certainly despise their foreign policy from late Mao on for some time afterward, though I don’t think there’s any comparing then and now, as much as some people tend to make it out that way. If you want to call them social imperialists for buying copper from Zimbabwe and weapons from Israel, fine, but that’s not the same as backing Pol Pot and invading Vietnam.
I will shed no tears for Beria. Everyone from Molotov to Malenkov agreed to.kill the bastard. Unless your contention is that he was the only good member of the politburo and every single accusation and every single testimony about his plans are lies, he clearly made his own bed.
I’m not asking you to cry for Beria, I make no claim that he was a good guy*. I am simply citing his killing as part of the extreme action that Krushchev took to destroy the existing establishment. I mean, are we seriously going to say that all the people Stalin purged were guilty of all that they were charged with? I think that would be silly, but even they had open trials, unlike Beria. Would we not be forced to say, therefore, that the same confounding factors apply and perhaps even more? Because he was given a very similar range of charges.
*I elaborated on this point at first, but perhaps that’s not needed.
The NEP was always meant and assumed to be a very temporary stop gap by anyone who wasn’t named Bukharin. Deng was embarking on a generational project. The bolsheviks needed a couple of factories uo and running, training for their engineerss and access to technology and resources to rebuild and get them ready to transition to a planned economy. Deng wasn’t going to zag on the zig, this was a much more elaborate and planned approach to reforming the economy.
Also both of them embraced the support of anticommunist and capitalist states to build their economy, but Lenin and the Bolsheviks never accepted themselves engaging in repression of communist movements. This resulted in the foreign partnerships of the NEP breaking down and becoming ineffective, while China steadily benefitted from being the premier trading partner of many capitalist countries.
As with regards to Khruschchev. The thing that matters here is that the CPC is still around and in power and there is no such thing as the soviet union, anything else is sophistry. The specific levels of mean words uttered about the previous leader is an irrelevant metric, whether liberalised corn growing or dairy farming is the superior plan is pointless. What matters is that the Soviet Union fell
I think it’s reductive to say that Khrushchev’s coup against the establishment and his anti-cult of personality, which was the center of his characterization of his political project early on, means literally nothing or was just “mean words.” Beria was no killed in a secret trial by mean words (or perhaps he was, we can’t say for sure!). Rhetoric does not define the living or dying of a country, but it can be a factor when something that is tremendously important to the culture of a country is either viciously undone or slyly maintained.
Also, you phrase things as though you’re making a hard-nosed assessment, but you’re still isolating variables without any interest in, for example, the starting points of the respective countries, which I think is kind of important.
None of what I say is a sober hard-nosed assessment. I am stating my opinions which are rooted in my own biases and understanding of facts, which include being certifiably mad about the CPCs foreign policy from 1960 until now.
But when I speak of mean words, I speak of the contrast between Dengs repudiation of the cultural revolution with Khruschchev’s secret speech, an often used example of how Khruschchev is bad and Deng is not.
I will shed no tears for Beria. Everyone from Molotov to Malenkov agreed to.kill the bastard. Unless your contention is that he was the only good member of the politburo and every single accusation and every single testimony about his plans are lies, he clearly made his own bed.
I certainly despise their foreign policy from late Mao on for some time afterward, though I don’t think there’s any comparing then and now, as much as some people tend to make it out that way. If you want to call them social imperialists for buying copper from Zimbabwe and weapons from Israel, fine, but that’s not the same as backing Pol Pot and invading Vietnam.
I’m not asking you to cry for Beria, I make no claim that he was a good guy*. I am simply citing his killing as part of the extreme action that Krushchev took to destroy the existing establishment. I mean, are we seriously going to say that all the people Stalin purged were guilty of all that they were charged with? I think that would be silly, but even they had open trials, unlike Beria. Would we not be forced to say, therefore, that the same confounding factors apply and perhaps even more? Because he was given a very similar range of charges.
*I elaborated on this point at first, but perhaps that’s not needed.