حمید پیام عباسی@crazypeople.online to Memes@lemmy.ml · 4 个月前Victims of Communismlemmy.mlimagemessage-square212linkfedilinkarrow-up1536arrow-down1101
arrow-up1435arrow-down1imageVictims of Communismlemmy.mlحمید پیام عباسی@crazypeople.online to Memes@lemmy.ml · 4 个月前message-square212linkfedilink
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up11·4 个月前No. Bukharin was both a Mechanist and a right-opportunist that rejected collectivization, and ultimately stood against the USSR. I think it’s better for you to confront the ghost of Stalin than focus on what the USSR may have been had someone else been elected.
minus-squareDylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·4 个月前maybe Grigory Zinoviev, perhaps?
minus-squareDylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·4 个月前i’m just asking what would the ussr would be like if someone other than stalin (or trotsky) led the country after lenin (like zinoviev)
minus-squareCowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up8·4 个月前I think a better basis is instead looking at why the soviets did what they did in the first place before asking what might have been different otherwise.
No. Bukharin was both a Mechanist and a right-opportunist that rejected collectivization, and ultimately stood against the USSR.
I think it’s better for you to confront the ghost of Stalin than focus on what the USSR may have been had someone else been elected.
maybe Grigory Zinoviev, perhaps?
Why the alt-history focus?
i’m just asking what would the ussr would be like if someone other than stalin (or trotsky) led the country after lenin (like zinoviev)
I think a better basis is instead looking at why the soviets did what they did in the first place before asking what might have been different otherwise.