Ask Lemmygrad

765 readers

36 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

how did Khrushchev f*ck up? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

95 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I liked that you hid your reply to me behind another comment. Classy.

I like how you also quote an anti-communist in bad faith.

Never change.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Damn, so many ad hominems there comrade. Please fuck off.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

You first. The mods already told us to stop with this convo.

Ciao.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So I'm supposed to "research" your views...by reading through this thread...which is what I did.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

Keep attacking a strawman.

lol