During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
If the communists didn’t get rid of him, it was because communism bad corrupt. But when in fact they actually did get rid of him, it was “for political reasons.”
Consider the fact he was in power for like 20 years, and he was purged during power struggles. And the problem, like always, is not communism, but the fact it was USSR - contemporary communists, like Mao, were calling it socialist in words, imperialist in deeds.
Mao was referring to Krushchev, not Stalin. Mao supported Stalin, but opposed Khrushchev’s line that class struggle had ended in the soviet union, when it hadn’t. This led to some of the worst foreign policy by the PRC, such as supporting Pol Pot over Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR. Comparatively, the USSR continued to be firmer anti-imperialists. Mao was correct about the snake Khrushchev, and Khrushchev did introduce reform that led to the weakening of socialism, but neither the PRC nor the USSR were imperialist, and the split was a major error.
I don’t think his downfall screems “oh, he was arrested for his crimes” - it seems more “he’s getting purged for political reasons”?
During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Parenti
If the communists didn’t get rid of him, it was because communism bad corrupt. But when in fact they actually did get rid of him, it was “for political reasons.”
Unfalsifiable orthodoxy
Consider the fact he was in power for like 20 years, and he was purged during power struggles. And the problem, like always, is not communism, but the fact it was USSR - contemporary communists, like Mao, were calling it socialist in words, imperialist in deeds.
Mao was referring to Krushchev, not Stalin. Mao supported Stalin, but opposed Khrushchev’s line that class struggle had ended in the soviet union, when it hadn’t. This led to some of the worst foreign policy by the PRC, such as supporting Pol Pot over Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR. Comparatively, the USSR continued to be firmer anti-imperialists. Mao was correct about the snake Khrushchev, and Khrushchev did introduce reform that led to the weakening of socialism, but neither the PRC nor the USSR were imperialist, and the split was a major error.