What did he even actually do that was that bad? He supported some of the first socialist uprising in the Americas Asia and in Africa and continued to raise the standard of living for Soviet citizens and continued to help export socialism globally
Literally just optics It was simply a excuse to have a attempt at a detente in the 60s to stop the nukes flying In what way? What actual policy did he implement that made the soviet economic system somehow fundamentally different then what it was under Stalin? The only real changes he made was de-centralising the state plans somewhat through the creation of the regional economic soviets + a more egalitarian wage structure
Obviously some fuck ups exist like the whole corn in Siberia debacle but overall Nikita was a good socialist and overall helped the USSR and the socialist camp
Don't ask me i'm a maoist there's enough revisionism alreadyy Bump
Isaac Adams
He pushed out everyone Stalin had appointed to the politburo, and then fucked up the industrial policy. He thought that getting to parity with the west in food production and consumer goods was more important than continued industrial investment. Thus the USSR rapidly expanded milk production and started the disastrous virgin soil effort, but set itself up for long term stagnation. Besides this, he also restructured GOSPLAN on a whim, devolving planning functions to the provincial level where planning was barely possible. This was later reversed, but it certainly harmed the economic prospects of the union.
Leo Watson
He lied about Stalin at the 20th congress of the CPSU and ousted from power all of Stalin's cadres.
Owen Campbell
He backed down in Cuba when he could have stood firm, and by doing so reduced the faith of soviet allies in the USSR. North Korea broke from it's economic development program and started rapidly building up it's military out of fear when Kim il Sung couldn't get Khrushchev to guarantee the defense of the country.
Luis Morgan
Pulled aid from China when it was in the middle of a major famine
Sebastian Thomas
These are all pretty obvious fuck ups (Except for the purges of Stalin supporters which was just political bickering) But none of them fundamentally made the USSR less socialistic then it was under Stalin/Lenin
He didn't back down the deal was tit for tat (Soviets remove nukes from Cuba and in exchange NATO moves nukes from turkey
Owen Myers
Ahhhh the famous "Khrushchev-Mao split" argument Mao stopped supporting Khrushchev / USSR and vice Versa over an argument over Khruschevs apparent revisionism which makes it quite comical when one realises Mao soon turned china into one of the most revisionist deformed workers states on earth with "New Democracy" theory
Jason Jackson
That was a total dick move. However, we should never forget, Soviet aid provided at least part of the base for China's modernization, which was an internationalist move.
Like most of the human beings, it's a mix bag.
Jeremiah Rivera
Who cares you amerimutt
Joseph Perry
The whole corn thing was seriously retarded.
Aaron Hernandez
Khrushchev did start it though.
Lucas Baker
It was ideological. It was about thr legacy of Stalin. Once Khrushchev told Mao, why don't you move Stalin to Beijing if you guys like him so much?
However, from today's perspective, Khrushchev was more like adding tweaks on Stalin's system, rather than really going for a capitalism move.
Aaron Reyes
We'll Khrushchev ultimately was proven right since china soon became a insanely deformed workers state with an NEP on steroids that began to collaborate with the USA against Socialist states and socialist orgs (People's republic of Cambodia / Splitting the Left-Opposition in Rhodesia / supporting US backed "Radical Democracy" AKA SocDem orgs in Ethiopia to overthrow the Derg goverment
Jose Ramirez
The USA already had submarine based missiles, so withdrawing from Cuba created an imbalance, not parity.
which isn't what the description of the revisionist policies implies and what dunces like Bill Bland hoxhaists and also maoists are fucking up which is why they really are just as fucking retarded
Alexander Turner
Very little economic change happened under him The only real economic change was the creation of regional economic soviets to de-centralise the planning model What major changes occurred in the USSRs political system from 1936-1988? Marxism-Leninism was still the governing ideology of the CPSU and the USSR and was all the way up until the late eighties No economic or political changes occurred that conflicted with ML
Ryder Williams
His economic reforms began the revival of capitalism that culminated in Gorbachev and his destruction of the USSR.
His land reforms caused massive erosion that took over a decade to recover from, and caused economic set-backs.
His obsession with rockets and missiles meant that the excellent and war-tested soviet cannon designers had to start from scratch after he left to replace the needs of the armed forces.
His lies about Stalin resulted in world-wide rejection of communism. France, for example, had a VERY popular communist party with their affiliates making up large portions of the elected government. After that little speech the government lost most of them.
Cooper Parker
wrong, read
just going full retarded into denial mode over everything that happened by just saying "didnt happen" when it's already posted and described if you actually cared to read up on the issue ("i dont want to read any sources i just want a comment on here to say something i'll just flat out deny hurhurrhurrrr XDDD")
get the fuck off you fucking moron
Benjamin Rogers
The only real economic changes made under Khrushchev was the aforementioned de-centralisation of planning along with a more egalitarian wage structure being put in place Obviously he also changed the planned economy more towards the production of consumer goods and agriculture more then the heavy industry that it usually prioritised
James Nguyen
"but it's ONLY that, that's like nothing my dude X-D"
what the fuck are you smoking? is this just trolling and you're pretending to be retarded?
Adrian Morales
A more De-Centralized planned economy does not prevent a society from being socialist or ML It was still a planned economy just one devolved to a more regional level
Robert Powell
Tell me how a decentralised planning method made the economy fundamentally different then before hand when a planned economy was still the goverment policy?
Caleb Smith
it does exactly that, if you flat out deny that you are just talking out of your ass and are in opposition to basic Marxist Leninist principles
read the fucking texts and the textbooks on political economy, fucking effortless shitposting dumbass faggot
Alexander Sullivan
there was some type of oil boom in Soviets by that time. His bet was more like, opening up the system a little bit, so that the machine can function a bit better. Sadly this move did not work, bureaucrats backlashed and destroyed him. He was the last generation of Soviet leaders who still firmly believe that communism will win.
Chase Rivera
Also what about that clashes with ML?
Anthony Walker
...
Mason Johnson
...
Asher Rogers
No I just want an answer What fundamentally changed within the soviet economy and the soviet economy because of the devolving of planning to a more regional level? How did this clash with ML in a revisionist way and how did it make the USSR less socialist by its own standards?
Carson Turner
i just posted again, i guess making another reply means i win this is a post by me so it adds to my arguments :-)
Brayden Gutierrez
That wasn't me though… Fuck it I'll just start using this flag
Oliver Kelly
i'm just replying, dont you see? i just said something in response to what you said so i already won the argument because i replied, it's just your very own sound logic
Juan Howard
I don't want to be too harsh on him, so I'll say something nice. At least, unlike Brezhnev, he enforced the laws against black market activity.
decentralization is ML =DDD i just said something, my argument is therefore valid X-D
Dylan King
hahaha yeah totally no arguments, because if i dont read answers provided and just repeat what i just claim i win X-D
TOTALLY GOT ME
Gavin Allen
i just replied again and say you are wrong and my claims are right i win :DDDDD just asking a question tho XD
Jace Jenkins
All that the creation of the regional economic soviets did was take the duties of the already existing planning bureaus and allowed those same duties to be performed on a local level regionally So yes I would say that if no change actually occurred in the way production was handled (Which it didn't) and the regional soviets performed the same duties as the pre-existing Bodies for doing the same thing then yes I would say it was ML as it retained the same economic model as before the change
Dylan Kelly
Literally read Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the Soviet Union. It's readily available on Marxists.org The inherent basis of Soviet socialism requires central planning to maintain its stability. Decentralization can only begin post-scarcity, something that had not occurred and was delayed by the reforms of Corn-man
Zachary Long
Delegating planning powers to a lower level of government lead to greater inefficiencies, but it is not a break from central planning.
Austin Murphy
That's not what happened. They let every jack and john decide for themselves how things should go, essentially having the 5 year plan a dismissed guide-line
Chase Mitchell
Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Kosygin reform?
Logan Williams
Not the person you're quoting, but I've never heard of that reform. Was it based or capitalism in disguise?
Tyler Lee
it wouldn't have happened if China had been able to rely on the USSR for trade.
Hudson Butler
Correct. Cuba and NK economy were running pretty well until 90s.
Caleb Flores
Mixed bag. One of the good things was that under him was beginning investment into cybernetics and computers, something that was put on hold unecessarily till Stalin's death. nautil.us/issue/23/dominoes/how-the-computer-got-its-revenge-on-the-soviet-union Only by the mid-70s, cybernetics program was curtailed again, a time where the bureaucratic strata has managed to seize the CPSU completely,
Another good thing were his attempts to stimulate the economy by having enterprises to rely more on regional resources and to make them more profitable. Under Krushchev, Soviet economy grew substantially, which wasn't the case under Brezhnev.
What was also very good were his laxer policies on culture and civil liberties. Art, entertainment and freedom of expression could breath more freely.
Hungary was probably necessary. There was fascist and CIA influence in that uprising and the result would have probably been another "non alligned" market "socialist" state like Yugoland.
The bad things about him: - he is not innocent in regards to the Sino-Soviet split and the falling out with Albania - misinterpreted the communist movement largely in terms of abundance of products instead of simultaniously changing social relations which led to an empowerment of the managerial and bureaucratic strata - "peaceful coexistence" which weakened international class struggle
All in all the best Soviet leader after Lenin and Stalin, Andropov might have been good but he died too soon for us to make any judgements.
Nathaniel Scott
Not OP but I don’t think that he can truly be blamed for this. During the 50s the huge disparity in standards of living between the west and socialist countries was one of the strongest points of capitalist propaganda. Trying to close that gap seems like a logical goal.
Cooper Morris
Damn I like his fingers. Would probably feel fantastic around my cock. His foldy textury fingers going up and down of mys shaft and his grandad nose up my butthole, my asshair and asswater combined with the stench of a cheddar cheese making him open up his mouth and swallowing whole when my big greasy turd comes in and fills up his mouth full of delicious crunchy flavor.
That's the most bullshit comparison basis for propaganda ever.
Matthew James
COOORN
10/10.
Also reintroduced the law of profit to soviet production.
Cameron Jackson
That article is trash TBH, it fails to provide a complete quote of the criticisms and thus the readers are given a very opinionated view on these criticisms. Frankly, while computers are useful, there are many reasons to be wary of them and robots, something that is all the more real with the advent of AI.
Lucas Miller
1) See 2) Socialist growth, in spite of the propagana from estern news-papers, grew at a far faster rate than Western Europe and caught up and superseded it in many important areas of living conditions. The USSR canceled ration cards by 1946 and Eastern Europe managed to develop and recover enough to cancel ration cards at the same time as France and Britain, which had suffered little damage to infrastructure in comparison and had gained much instead.
Angel Moore
You’re missing my point. A major disparity in standards of living did exist, yes in large part due to the unfair advantages of imperialist countries, the devastation of the war, and other external factors, but regardless of the cause, it existed, and was a major propaganda point for the west. That being he case, attempting to close that gap doesn’t seem like a bad policy.
People need to stop being such autists about the Soviet Union and stop taking every statement point out where it may have been lagging behind the west as an indictment of Soviet socialism.
Kayden Anderson
Except that his actions did the opposite
Aiden Smith
The Stalin thing it's basically perfecting the state machine and alienating it from the proletariat replacing it with people that weren't there to serve the proletariats innterests (doing the same thing unsuccessful revolutions did in the past, perfecting the state machine) it basically sent the union downhill
David Scott
If all you're going to do is spit out ⛏️rotskyist propaganda, then go to >>>Zig Forums that's where that kind of rubbish is appreciated.
