this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
24 points (85.3% liked)
theory
848 readers
38 users here now
A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for !literature@www.hexbear.net will be removed.
The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
foreign policy (aside from liquidating hordes of nazis by stalin), khruschev is more celebrated (with some large sectarian points of disagreement) despite his duplicity on internal policy, while stalin was more conciliatory towards the west with more marxist-compatible internal policy and economics (this side of ethnic displacement).
is a land of contrast, and is defended by no one, curiously.
doesn't your first statement contradict what you say in the end
I was gonna say actually there are people that do but I re read your comment and your comment kinda of says that
I meant more that support for anti-colonial struggles, including vietnam/cuba and pan-african/arabic movements, is more khruschev (period) lane, and what people typically praise ussr for. Whether it is contingent on party being there, at the right time, or whether it was more genuine sympathies/antipathies over korea handling, one cannot attribute same level of brazen anti-western policy to stalin.
I agree ,I know people from global southren countries who have favorable views of khrushchev over that