Why did Cornman lie about Stalin? What did he gain from doing this...

Why did Cornman lie about Stalin? What did he gain from doing this? I'd understand criticizing parts of Stalin's career but Khrushchev literally made shit up about him. This also created a base of myths anti-communists still use against the USSR

Attached: 1af94df9a881c75a715035e616ee6429b3c8c306bccbe5196060ac2cff1598bb.jpg (330x444, 42.63K)

Other urls found in this thread:

1.bp.blogspot.com/-KpDa6mS24aU/UL5bGLqbFcI/AAAAAAAAASc/yQm97X0rSvQ/s1600/Lenin-and-Gorky-and-others-disappear.jpg
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2nd_World_Congress_of_the_Comintern_Lenin_Zinoviev_Bukharin_Gorky.jpg
archive.org/details/OnOvercomingCultIndividual/page/n0
8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html#q10010
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Oh and I meant in the secret speech

Communism doesn't lie!

Attached: stal.jpg (1200x1553, 139.81K)

Factional conflict. Kruschev's faction wanted to alienate and isolate the people associated with Stalin like Molotove, Voroshilov, etc. Ironically its basically the same tactics Stalin used against the Left and Right Opposition.

That picture always looked weird to me. Is there any consensus on whether it was faked as anti-Stalin propaganda?

Sine people say its fake because theres that weird white glow around the other guy, while all the other figures dont have a white glow.

pretty much what this user said
i actually asked Ismail about this just recently:

it's genuine.
once again, coincidentally asked Ismail about this as well:
>There is a similar example of Lenin and Gorky. This is what Soviet citizens saw: 1.bp.blogspot.com/-KpDa6mS24aU/UL5bGLqbFcI/AAAAAAAAASc/yQm97X0rSvQ/s1600/Lenin-and-Gorky-and-others-disappear.jpg
>This was the actual photo: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2nd_World_Congress_of_the_Comintern_Lenin_Zinoviev_Bukharin_Gorky.jpg (with Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek, etc.)
third time posting because i kept fucking up

Attached: 34853045485_0b8593942c_o.jpg (2862x3500, 11.21M)

But he did not lie?!

not lie per se, but he did go out of his way to exaggerate a lot of thing, and he ended up doing most of the things he criticised Stalin for (like attempting to centralising more power, which was the main thing that got him booted in '64)

Stalin was a grains dogmatist while Khrushchev realized CORN was revolutionary.

Attached: corn.jpg (960x756 256.6 KB, 92.92K)

I asked the same question Ismail, here is his answer.

Part of the purpose of his speech was to boost himself and discredit his rivals (Molotov, Kaganovich and other "Stalinists.")

The other part was to try to come to terms with the Stalin period in a way that didn't seriously rock the boat. After Stalin died and Malenkov took over, the Soviet press greatly curtailed praise of him, and the Short Course history he edited was withdrawn from publication but with no other party history taking its place.

So from 1953-56 there was a rather awkward situation where Soviet officials would continue to glorify Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin as equals but clearly treat Stalin in a somewhat hushed fashion compared to the first three.

Khrushchev's solution was basically shock therapy as carried out by a ten year old. Khrushchev's colleagues regretted the speech as soon as it began to informally circulate. Instead, the official summary of Stalin's misdeeds from 1956 onward was this text compiled mainly by Suslov: archive.org/details/OnOvercomingCultIndividual/page/n0

The Soviet narrative of Stalin from 1956 until Gorby can be summarized like so: "Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist theoretician and revolutionary who defended the Party against Trotskyism and Bukharinism in the 1920s. However, got an inflated ego when the successes of socialist construction were attributed to him rather than the Party. He began consolidating power. In the 1930s there were widespread violations of socialist legality and groundless repressions which Stalin shared blame in causing. A giant personality cult developed around Stalin which distorted history-writing and created an unhealthy political climate. Then in 1956 the 20th CPSU Congress fixed this."

Khrushchev's speech wasn't published in the USSR until the Gorbachev period. The Soviets ignored it and referred everyone to the aforementioned Suslov-crafted text.

De-Stalinization absolutely could have been carried out in a more competent and honest way. But it wasn't, and anti-communists have made use of that ever since. Rather than an objective analysis of Stalin, Khrushchev presented his listeners with a fairly lurid exposé that, as I said, contained omissions, distortions and falsities

8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html#q10010

As far as I know corn is very good for animals, but has no value for humans. It's one of those foods you can eat to loose weight.

also important to note that Stalin was rehabilitated under Brezhnev to a degree, and i believe Chernenko (who was just going to be Brezhnev 2 had he lived longer) would have taken it even further.

So corn is hardly useful because for most land, it's more efficient to grow vegetation than raise animals on them because of the costs and nutrients necessary for each, and even then raising animals is only more efficient if fertilizer costs a lot and you have no other means to get the proper nutrients from plants (unlikely).

Forgot to take off shitpost flag

Aside from political reasons another reason is that Khruschev hated Stalin over the death of his son. On of Khruschev's sons had gotten drunk and killed an officer in a fight and was sentenced to death for murder. Khruschev pleaded for Stalin to help him, but Stalin told him that it was out of his hands this time. By this time I mean that Khruschev's son had a similar incident a few years prior that he had gotten a pardon for. Khruschev began hating Stalin ever since then.

Attached: Никита Хрущев в окружении людей, голосующих за его отставку, СССР, 14 октября 1964 года..jpg (800x532, 48.89K)

Interesting because Stalin wasn't willing to sacrifice his own son for some German generals in the war because he didn't want to show spook favoritism to any one. Interesting indeed…

You mean he wasn't willing to SAVE his son for a German Field Marshall

Agree comrade, vegan diet would have saved Soviet Union.

This but possibly unironically though.

Attached: 20232687_329909297451447_7630510709527250334_o.jpg (540x540 264.03 KB, 219.61K)

First reason, essentially, reduces everything to personal conflict:
It's as if disagreement between a few people at the top could define decades Soviet politics. That's preposterous voluntarism.

It ignores the fact that everyone at the top was not having political power on their own merit, but by expressing political will of certain groups. I'm guessing, because one of the dogmas of Khrushchevites was that there weren't any groups with different interests within USSR.

Second reason - the necessity to "come to terms with the Stalin period" - doesn't explain anything. Why would there be such a necessity? If Khrushchev's period was a simple continuation of previous politics (as it is implied by Revisionists, yes), there is simply no need to re-assess Stalin's period.

Nevertheless it objectively was needed (as destalinization campaign was a major topic for many years and had sparked quite a bit of dissent, coups, and uprisings within Soviet Union).

Such a need could arise only if the course got changed, if new (desired) actions of government would contradict the old ideas. It is only then do you need to debunk those old ideas - or, as Khrushchevites did, silence them by labelling them "Stalinists".

I.e. the actual reason for destalinization would be those reforms of Khrushchevites (the ones they don't wish to mention).

You assume Khrushchev was stupid just because you can't explain his actions. But isn't it a bit more logical to assume that you don't fully understand his reasons?

The situation is hardly different from proles calling politicians "stupid" because they make decisions that harm livelihood of proles. But this misses the fact that livelihood of proles doesn't matter to those politicians. Politicians are quite smart and efficient. They simply have different goals.

Practically everyone knew it. It was West who called it "secret" for propaganda reasons (sensationalism sells).

Because it was anti-communist in essence and form (international Communist movement imploded because of it), not because people on top suddenly became stupid and carried on being stupid for many years without realizing their mistakes, and without anyone to point those mistakes out.

I would say, this explanation is wholly based on Ismail's acceptance of Khrushchevite Revisionism (which is rejected by mainstream ML, btw).

Attached: really?.jpg (384x379, 25.59K)

Ismail is not a Khrushchevite. He considers him to be incompetent and a hyprocrit.
You are only focusing on theory and economics I guess. Truth is, there was also a need of change in terms of culture and civil liberties. It's weird how some communists completely disregard people's desire for breathing room in cultural and social politics as someone irrelevant. This has something to do with Stalin's extremly mechanistic interpretation of DiaMat which was rightly criticized by Mao. Under Krushchev, civil liberties were improved, and the USSR became generally more lax about this stuff, which coincides with peak in living standard during the Krushchev and early Brezhnev period - so yes, there was a need for it.

That Krushchev made mistakes, was partly responsible for the Sino-Soviet split and ruled through extralegal means, and had a lukewarm foreign policy, is clear. But you seem to approach the issue from a "Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong and criticizing him is anti-communist" standpoint.

I said that unironically too. Having said that,you put it better than I did and made an excellent point. Soviets did invest large amounts of resources into meat industry and wasted a lot of money on grain imports. Most of Soviet Union was either very cold or very hot. For that reasons for majority of it's history Russia had to buy horses, because climate was to hard for animals to grow in Russian steppes. So to overcome that, best option would be to abandoned meat, which requires a lot of energy and land to produce(not to mentioned money wasted on grain imports).

Also, it should be noted, that according to wiki first nation to use vertical farming was Soviet Armenia, so with some investments food could be also grown in major cities for ease of transportation. Lot's of missed opportunities and resources that could be invested into GLONAS,OGAS, Intelektors, phones etc…

You seem to rely on strawmanning.

Nice to know vegans are eco-fascists. Best invade these third world countries and stop them from eating meat.

ah yes, all those third world countries with famously meat-heavy diets
trying to score 'anti-imperialism points' by concern trolling about the threat of vegan imperialism in the third world is a whole new level of insane

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (940x469, 115.1K)

Do you wanna know how I know you're an Amerilard?

Yes he lied. He invented some of the biggest myths, like Stalin having a mental breakdown when Operation Barbarossa started.

no

I was talking about the part where it decries third world countries eating meat. Nothing about the US you dumb kooooont.

Developed and undeveloped nations should stop eating meat and instead eat a balanced vegan-based diet.

t. Vegang
Also I'm vegan

Attached: BtnIzJvCQAMv3i5.jpg (600x600, 71.02K)

People in the developed world have NO RIGHT telling those in the developing world what to do. If they need to eat meat to reach a suitable calorie intake then they will.

In some future fantasy land where all things are equal can we dictate to those we've plundered and deprived what to eat. Else you're an imperialist.

kill yourself liberal

Most societies are post hunter-gatherer. Eventually, you just kill off all the animals in your area or have to deal with vast tracts of land to maintain them. Veganism is by no means a priority, however sustainable in the modern age by any civilization that has made stone tools. If you don't have any arable land whatsoever, nor fertilizer, nor means of reasonably escaping your situation, then yes, your particular diet is not something to mind with the highest urgency. Regardless, it is sustainable in a way that is beyond the scope of merely one's community.

Lab grown meat is the answer.

At that point why even bother? Just do lab-synthesized vitamin 1-day-meals, just a pill you take every day.

It's in the texture comrade.
But also that 1 a day pill would be unironically great.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (484x600, 315.06K)

That would unironically be great, but you need to stuff at least 2k calories in there.

Attached: 42272e9d35ac08ed7c323bc1289a401ba089d79717187b4bd861e0870e29d5a1.jpeg (1024x432, 191.92K)