Dear comrades,

As we all know there are two soviet eras pre and post death of Stalin. We all know Khrushchev basically did a coupe detat, by killing all Stalinists and also by starting the anti Stalin propaganda. We know he was the cause of the Soviet Sino split.

But what exactly caused the split? What policies did he push that were reformist or capitalist in nature ? How exactly did he fuck up? I know the results, but I lack in knowledge of the causes.

  • Che's Motorcycle@lemmygrad.ml
    0·
    3 months ago

    I’ve read most of your comments, and I get a really strange feeling from them. Almost like “I’m not going to bother reading Kruschev myself, but you all are WRONG because you’ve never read him”.

    As an ML community, we’re committed to historical materialism (you can see an excellent overview of it from Marx here: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism). What I take from that is we have can have a deeper understanding of history than “mere” historians, who still typically lack any understanding of class or political economy.

    And we especially don’t need to read all the “Great Men” who “made things happen”. We know that history is a process of class struggle, and understand its outcomes as such

    • Makan@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Not at all.

      I’m friends with Ismail and he got me interested in reading the other side of the story.

      “I’ve read most of your comments, and I get a really strange feeling from them. Almost like “I’m not going to bother reading Kruschev myself, but you all are WRONG because you’ve never read him”.”

      Vibes aren’t research.

      No investigation, no right to speak!

    • Che's Motorcycle@lemmygrad.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      And I would add that there’s especially little value in studying the far right if our goal is to understand what they want.

      Sartre put it best:

      Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.