2026-09-17 18:28 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2026-09-17 18:33
No, it’s a serious post. I also think Stalin was a better leader than Khrushchev, especially considering the fact that Khrushchev enabled the rise of bourgeois elements that later gained power in a counterrevolution in the 1990s. It was still socialist up until the end, but Stalin was better overall.
-
@sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2026-09-17 21:46
Serious Poe’s Law. Didn’t think someone would be up in here simping for a mass murderer
-
@for_some_delta@beehaw.org 2026-09-18 11:04
The succession issues created by the deaths of Lenin and Stalin are silly. The party was dynastic without a clear plan for succession. Being fair however, Khrushchev was the only First Secretary with the rest being General Secretary. Pity the dynasty chose successors from the political class. Hijacking the state seems to perpetuate the boundary between boss and worker. For the boss, succession to power; for the worker, wage labor.
-
@trainsrkool@lemmy.ml 2026-09-24 21:28
nope