The man that created the NEP would not be that critical of that image.

IMO that's a reductive view of the Sino-Soviet split.

I hold that the conflict between China and the USSR was sad, unneeded, and bad.

I also hold that China is part of the hope for a restoration of socialist movement in the current era.

lol. China is such a sham

I disagree that China "betrayed" the USSR. Even outside of the whole disagreement about Stalin and the USSR recalling industrial advisors from China, there is a lot of idealogical compromises and bad foreign policy the USSR did. In my opinion it was the other way around.

Soviet Revisionism (Ideological)

I think one would have to read the secret speech at the 20th CPSU congress to get any of the context. 人民日报 wrote a lot about why it's a bad "self-criticism" in On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

For more than a month now, reactionaries throughout the world have been crowing happily over self-criticism by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with regard to this cult of the individual. They say: Fine! The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the first to establish a socialist order, made appalling mistakes, and, what is more, it was Stalin himself, that widely renowned and honoured leader, who made them! The reactionaries think they have got hold of something with which to discredit the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and other countries. But they will get nothing for all their pains. Has any leading Marxist ever written that we could never commit mistakes or that it is absolutely impossible for a given Communist to commit mistakes? Isn’t it precisely because we Marxist-Leninists always deny the existence of a “demigod” who never makes big or small mistakes that we Communists use criticism and self-criticism in our inner-Party life? Moreover, how could it be conceivable that a socialist state which was the first in the world to put the dictatorship of the proletariat into practice, which did not have the benefit of any precedent, should make no mistakes of one kind or another?

I recommend one to read the whole of On the Question Of Stalin but some quotes:

In abusing Stalin, Khrushchov is in fact wildly denouncing the Soviet system and state. His language in this connection is by no means weaker but is actually stronger than that of such renegades as Kautsky, Trotsky, Tito and Djilas.

Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. He failed to consult the fraternal Parties in advance on this question of principle which involves the whole international communist movement, and afterwards tried to impose a fait accompli on them. Whoever makes an appraisal of Stalin different from that of the leadership of the CPSU is charged with “defence of the personality cult” as well as “interference” in the internal affairs of the CPSU. But no one can deny the international significance of the historical experience of the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the historical fact that Stalin was the leader of the international communist movement; consequently, no one can deny that the appraisal of Stalin is an important question of principle involving the whole international communist movement. On what ground, then, do the leaders of the CPSU forbid other fraternal Parties to make a realistic analysis and appraisal of Stalin?

The Communist Party of China has invariably insisted on an overall, objective and scientific analysis of Stalin’s merits and demerits by the method of historical materialism and the presentation of history as it actually occurred, and has opposed the subjective, crude and complete negation of Stalin by the method of historical idealism and the wilful distortion and alteration of history.

The Communist Party of China has consistently held that Stalin did commit errors, which had their ideological as well as social and historical roots. It is necessary to criticize the errors Stalin actually committed, not those groundlessly attributed to him, and to do so from a correct stand and with correct methods. But we have consistently opposed improper criticism of Stalin, made from a wrong stand and with wrong methods.

Khrushchov said, “Ah! If only Stalin had died ten years earlier!”[19] As everybody knows, Stalin died in 1953; ten years earlier would have been 1943, the very year when the Soviet Union began its counter-offensive in the Great Patriotic War. At that time, who wanted Stalin to die? Hitler!

It is not a new thing in the history of the international communist movement for the enemies of Marxism-Leninism to vilify the leaders of the proletariat and try to undermine the proletarian cause by using some such slogan as “combating the personality cult”. It is a dirty trick which people saw through long ago.

In the period of the First International the schemer Bakunin used similar language to rail at Marx. At first, to worm himself into Marx’s confidence, he wrote him, “I am your disciple and I am proud of it.”[20] Later, when he failed in his plot to usurp the leadership of the First International, he abused Marx and said, “As a German and a Jew, he is authoritarian from head to heels”[21] and a “dictator”.[22]

In the period of the Second International the renegade Kautsky used similar language to rail at Lenin. He slandered Lenin, likening him to “the God of monotheists”[23] who had reduced Marxism “to the status not only of a state religion but of a medieval or oriental faith”.[24]

In the period of the Third International the renegade Trotsky similarly used such language to rail at Stalin. He said that Stalin was a “tyrant”[25] and that “the Stalinist bureaucracy has created a vile leader-cult, attributing to leaders divine qualities”.[26]

The modern revisionist Tito clique also use similar words to rail at Stalin, saying that Stalin was the “dictator” “in a system of absolute personal power”.[27]

Thus it is clear that the issue of “combating the personality cult” raised by the leadership of the CPSU has come down through Bakunin, Kautsky, Trotsky and Tito, all of whom used it to attack the leaders of the proletariat and undermine the proletarian revolutionary movement.

[19.] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Soviet-Hungarian Friendship Rally in Moscow, July 19, 1963.

[20.] M. A. Bakunin’s Letter to Karl Marx, December 22, 1868, Die Neue Zeit, No. 1, 1900.

[21.] Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, the Story of His Life, Eng. ed., Covici Friede Publishers, New York, 1935, p. 429.

[22.] Engels to A. Bebel, June 20, 1873, Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 432.

[23.] Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed., Rand School Press, New York, 1946, p. 54.

[24.] Ibid., p. 29.

[25.] Leon Trotsky, Stalin, an Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, Eng. ed., Harper and Brothers, New York and London, 1941, p. 420.

[26.] Leon Trotsky, “The Stalinist Bureaucracy and the Assassination of Kirov”, On the Kirov Assassination, Eng. ed., Pioneer Publishers New York, 1956, p. 17.

[27.] Edvard Kardelj, “Five Years Later”, Borba, June 28, 1953.

hit character limit, will continue in reply.

TIL Gorbachev is secret seeseepee spy.

One part is lack of political will for it, and that will require the people of china to clamor for it

it sounds like there might be way more interest in that now than there has been in many years

I hope that they are making the right choices given the information they have.

If posts from people here are any indication, and the historical trends of every socialist movement ever, it's so hard to believe that this will happen. I want it to, desperately, but it sounds like the entire PRC has captialulated to the bourgeiosie and Western pressure.