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
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    strawman of the man

    That’s not a strawman. A strawman would be me distorting Khrushchev’s words and attacking a distorted version of them to suit my purposes. I’m not doing that, I am looking at history - what Khrushchev actually DID, and then I draw conclusions from that. Mao has nothing to do with this.

    …So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…

    Ironically, it is you who created a strawman - you are trying to criticize me as though the only driving factor of my criticisms of Khrushchev is “well, Mao said corn man bad so I accept that uncritically”.

    • Makan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      “That’s not a strawman. A strawman would be me distorting Khrushchev’s words and attacking a distorted version of them to suit my purposes. I’m not doing that, I am looking at history - what Khrushchev actually DID, and then I draw conclusions from that. Mao has nothing to do with this.”

      No, no, it’s definitely a strawman and either way you’re scuttling the point I’m making.

      "Ironically, it is you who created a strawman - you are trying to criticize me as though the only driving factor of my criticisms of Khrushchev is “well, Mao said corn man bad so I accept that uncritically”.

      You’re not pointing out where the strawman is; you just vaguely alluded to my supposed strawman.

      So far, you’ve managed to divert the discussion.

      lol

      • LeniX
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You’re not pointing out where the strawman is; you just vaguely alluded to my supposed strawman.

        I did. Right here: “…So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…” - this implies that what you are saying is this - my views on Khrushchev derive solely from Mao’s opinion, and thus it is wrong to just take Mao’s word on it. I never implied that my views on Khrushchev are based on Mao’s views, thus your criticism (this one - “…So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it…”) attacks a distorted version of my reasoning. The real reason I criticize Khrushchev is not because Mao or whoever, but because of historical analysis of the specific policies that were enacted under his leadership, and of the consequences we’re witnessing today.

        So far, you’ve managed to divert the discussion.

        Let’s see… The post was about Khrushchev, you centered around the Sino-Soviet split. When I pointed out Khrushchev’s responsibility for it, you brought up the Russian Revolution as though that somehow excuses him and not merely explains the ideological school of his. Then when I pointed out that Mao was right in harshly criticizing Khrushchev’s revisionism (as history proved us) - you started attacking Mao as though the fact it was “late Mao” somehow made him wrong, even though,again - history proved it with USSR being overthrown. Then I explained point by point what Mao said, and compared that to the actualities of USSR’s history. You then used an “ad hominem” argument here - “Have you read Khruschev or are you just quoting Mao here?”. Suddenly my words are discredited because I didn’t read Khrushchev, as though I was obliged to. Then it is me who created a strawman.

        Is it really me who is constantly diverting the discussion?

        • Makan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re still not pointing out where I did that. Simply accusing you of something is not strawmanning.

          Eyyup.

          You’ve changed the topic several times.

          All I said was that we needed to learn Khruschev’s side of the story and then you started arguing against historical research. Bravo.

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

            All I said was that we needed to learn Khruschev’s side of the story and then you started arguing against historical research. Bravo.

            Another strawman. I didn’t argue against historical research, all I said was memoirs alone aren’t enough to give you a full picture. In any case, the analyses do take into account Khrushchev’s memoirs.

            You’re still not pointing out where I did that.

            I did, several times. You did it here: …So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev and, therefore, you don’t know Khruchev’s own argument, just your own personal strawman of the man, for all you know… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it even though he was known for getting a lot of shit wrong during this era lol…

            You criticize me “taking Mao’s word” and “not reading Khrushchev’s own argument”, implying that is the sole reason why I criticize Khrushchev by creating a caricature of him and criticizing that caricature. I did not do that, I repeated multiple times where my viewpoint comes from.

            You’ve changed the topic several times.

            You do realize that the entire thread is publicly visible. I don’t understand what you are doing here.

            • Makan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              Another strawman. I didn’t argue against historical research, all I said was memoirs alone aren’t enough to give you a full picture. In any case, the analyses do take into account Khrushchev’s memoirs.

              They do not. You have yet to offer an analysis. If you’re not against learning the other side of the story, then you have yet to explain what it is you’re even talking about.

              I did, several times. You did it here: …So you’d read Mao but not Khruschev and, therefore, you don’t know Khruchev’s own argument, just your own personal strawman of the man, for all you know… Sure, just take Mao’s word for it even though he was known for getting a lot of shit wrong during this era lol…

              Okay. Now explain how I “did it here.”

              Ha.

              You do realize that the entire thread is publicly visible. I don’t understand what you are doing here.

              Gee, thanks, Captain Obvious.

              • DankZedong A
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                3 months ago

                Hi there, welcome to the end of the comment cave. While we encourage healthy discussion we feel like this particular comment chain has broken free of said healthy discussion. Please let eachother be and agree to disagree or find a way to keep the debate a bit more constructive, otherwise we sadly feel like we have to end the thread as a whole. Thanks.