If the communists didn’t get rid of him, it was because communism bad corrupt. But when in fact they actually did get rid of him, it was “for political reasons.”
Consider the fact he was in power for like 20 years, and he was purged during power struggles. And the problem, like always, is not communism, but the fact it was USSR - contemporary communists, like Mao, were calling it socialist in words, imperialist in deeds.
Mao was referring to Krushchev, not Stalin. Mao supported Stalin, but opposed Khrushchev’s line that class struggle had ended in the soviet union, when it hadn’t. This led to some of the worst foreign policy by the PRC, such as supporting Pol Pot over Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR. Comparatively, the USSR continued to be firmer anti-imperialists. Mao was correct about the snake Khrushchev, and Khrushchev did introduce reform that led to the weakening of socialism, but neither the PRC nor the USSR were imperialist, and the split was a major error.
If the communists didn’t get rid of him, it was because communism bad corrupt. But when in fact they actually did get rid of him, it was “for political reasons.”
Unfalsifiable orthodoxy
Consider the fact he was in power for like 20 years, and he was purged during power struggles. And the problem, like always, is not communism, but the fact it was USSR - contemporary communists, like Mao, were calling it socialist in words, imperialist in deeds.
Mao was referring to Krushchev, not Stalin. Mao supported Stalin, but opposed Khrushchev’s line that class struggle had ended in the soviet union, when it hadn’t. This led to some of the worst foreign policy by the PRC, such as supporting Pol Pot over Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR. Comparatively, the USSR continued to be firmer anti-imperialists. Mao was correct about the snake Khrushchev, and Khrushchev did introduce reform that led to the weakening of socialism, but neither the PRC nor the USSR were imperialist, and the split was a major error.