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.

  • Makan@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    0·
    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@lemmygrad.ml
      0·
      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@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        0·
        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 @lemmygrad.ml
          0·
          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.