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
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    We did. It’s just that he lied a lot

    • Makan ☭ CPUSA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not talking about that dumb interview, I mean memoirs, personal correspondence, people that were close to him, etc.

      My friend tells me that there are also a lot of speeches of his with ideas that weren’t even fully his own.

      Sounds like an area of investigation!

      • loathesome dongeaterA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean…

        What you are suggesting is that we time travel and to get information that we don’t have right now.

        For obvious reasons we cannot time travel and do that. Obviously it would be nice to know how they rationalised their disastrous viewpoints. But we can’t do that. Since they are dead and we cannot time travel.

        So what are you getting at? Am I understanding you point correctly or what am I missing?

        • Makan ☭ CPUSA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          We do have the information though.

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

          Hell, his works are literally cited in Kuusinen’s work a lot.

          No “time travel” required! Just old-fashioned historical research.

          • 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?