Read as a debate on theory I wouldn't call that disappointing-- Kh. displays such a breadth of knowledge and JFK, Harvard grad and successful author of books on contemporary history, just can't keep up.
Of course it isn't a debate, though, and the main point it illustrates is a difference in style. Kh is a politician risen through the committees, and he can built a machine of rhetorics and ideology to support and justify the politics he is pursuing. JFK is a mass media charismatic, and he justifies his policies by attaching his face and a fuzzy label, like freedom.
(And no matter the rhetorics, the material circumstances remain the same: the US deepens its global economic domination, and the world revolution never happens.)
Source?
https://www.history.com/news/kennedy-krushchev-vienna-summit-meeting-1961
https://archive.md/VTNq7
deleted by creator
Read as a debate on theory I wouldn't call that disappointing-- Kh. displays such a breadth of knowledge and JFK, Harvard grad and successful author of books on contemporary history, just can't keep up.
Of course it isn't a debate, though, and the main point it illustrates is a difference in style. Kh is a politician risen through the committees, and he can built a machine of rhetorics and ideology to support and justify the politics he is pursuing. JFK is a mass media charismatic, and he justifies his policies by attaching his face and a fuzzy label, like freedom.
(And no matter the rhetorics, the material circumstances remain the same: the US deepens its global economic domination, and the world revolution never happens.)
deleted by creator
Oh God I thought it was a satirical article.