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.

  • LeniX
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    We have Khruschev’s memoirs and speeches and supplementary theoretical texts lol

    Memoirs alone will not give you the full picture - rather, they will give you someone’s viewpoint, however distorted it might be. One must inevitably compare that to other information.

    Gorbachev, for instance, claimed in his memoirs that “Glasnost unleashed forces they could not control”. That was at the very least very dishonest - he himself went to great lengths and encouraged criticism of the CPSU through the same media he handed over to Yakovlev and other anti-communist forces. What good would it do reading this part of his memoir if you don’t have other sources of information to verify it against?

    • Makan ☭ CPUSA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Okay, but Khruschev’s not Gorby.

      And you already give an example of insight that historical research and reading can provide.

      Thanks for proving my point.

      • LeniX
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Okay, but Khruschev’s not Gorby.

        The point stands - memoirs alone are not a reliable source, his or Gorby’s. Conceptually

        • Makan ☭ CPUSA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          The point doesn’t stand because we don’t know that due to the difference in character.

          • LeniX
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            memoirs alone are not a reliable source

            The point doesn’t stand because we don’t know that due to the difference in character.

            What is it that we don’t know (due to the difference in character)? I am genuinely lost. What does that mean?

            • Makan ☭ CPUSA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 month ago

              You know what that means and, if you say you don’t, then I accuse you of playing coy.

              haha

              • LeniX
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I don’t, please don’t presume what I know. Please explain yourself, in good faith

                  • LeniX
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    No. I’m sorry, I’ll just stop here. It would be better to finish this conversation, I don’t like the way it is going.