Khrushchev did nothing wrong

...

They aren't even marxist.

the main criticisms made were that, despite being a great revolutionary and an important figure in the foundation of the USSR, many unjust actions were taken during the purge, and he had centralised a lot of power within the party.

You're right, it doesn't even pretend to be Marxist, Juche is another left natlib ideology like Chavismo or Nasserism

Epic

Revisionism is discarding the scientific content of Marxism – something Khrushchev is well-known for.

Meh.
Did he really do anything that bad? Was he a real noteworthy figure?
Sure, he shat on Stalin a bit but aside from that what's so special about him?

Get purged.
Get purged.

Pragmatism and adaption is the way forward.

ML is the axiomatic foundation of Juche son
Juche literally just means "[the] subject"

Scientific content such as what exactly?

such as?

Marxism has never been dogmatic, retard. Hardline anti-revisionists like Hoxha aren’t even dogmatic. Engels himself said Marxism isn’t a dogma, but a guide to action. This doesn’t deny that Marxism is a scientific world-outlook. If you deny this you are a lib

Yes the great purge was unjust. Yet Khrushchev took part in it and in the cult of personality. He was a hypocrite and a liar.

ML is the presupposition of Juche

Attached: read kim jong il.jpg (1080x1783 1.11 MB, 1.62M)

N O T O N E C R I M E

Attached: furr.png (225x243, 40.32K)

You have to go back >>>Zig Forums

Cornman memes and Commy blocks

Khrushchev is a complete revisionist. Even apart from his slanderous attacks on Stalin, there was his theory of “peaceful co-existence” – a policy which China and Albania rightfully criticized for practically negating proletarian internationalism and class conflict as a policy beyond mere rhetoric. This is a flagrant deviation from the Marxist-Leninist line:

>>Zig Forums
You can't even present an argument, you literally just dislike Khrushchev based on other dumbasses on this site and Twitter being all CORN BAD CORN BAD HE DISSED DADDY STALIN YUGH

Pottery

Cornman >>> Eyebrow man. Change my mind.

Attached: BBDAD841-844D-4517-BE78-AA881C8774A2.jpeg (800x472, 89.36K)

Peaceful co-existence was necessary because the imperialists had fucking nukes. Do you want the planet to be wiped out? Last time I checked socialism can't happen if we're back at the stone age. Class struggle happens between the DOTPs and the imperialist states, not between the workers and the party, just look at how far China was set back by that cultural revolution bullshit because students wanted to play soldier in their country against their teachers. If adhering strictly to Marx led to the cultural revolution and the Shining Path killing proletarian community leaders then clearly the theory had to be updated.

majority of Russians disagree user

Attached: 8F10F5B1-F2D5-46ED-969F-9F70990047B0.jpeg (495x619, 93.05K)

You obviously haven't read Marx, other than an unsystematic smattering of texts, and it shows son
Mao for example most certainly practiced innovations and Zig Forumspot was heavily influenced by anarchist thought and pomo French theory

Oh misrecognized shining path as Khmer rouge, not that there's much difference
IIRC the shining path were on garbage tier maoist theory

Nice job falling for imperialist nuclear blackmail. If they wanted to defend their economic system and exploitation through nuclear weapons, let them, and history will be the judge. There will be no guarantee that there will not another world war until socialism was triumphed over the entire planet. Nuclear war is a valid form of struggle. The USSR should have launched a pre-emptive strike

Everyone forgets that he had enormous shoes to fill. Nonetheless, he was seduced by the power of capital.

Attached: 299.jpg (552x640, 40.39K)

what did they mean by this

Cuba already had enough nukes to wipe out any invading American army and he threw the hat in.

Neoliberal truly has become a another term for “something I don’t like”. Besides that, this is obviously in regards to China under Mao so your post was in the end a complete waste of data

I don't mean that China became neoliberal you brainlet, neoliberalism was only possible in part because China allowed Western porky to disenfranchise workers by moving their industry to China.

it's objectively true that economic conditions worsened under Brezhnev's mismanagement. Russians have a favourable view of him only because that's the only socialism living Russians have experienced.

Nikita never abandoned Marxism nor Leninism so I don't understand what most of these comments mean

I find the idea that cornmans foreign policy was "Capitulation" laughable especially when it was China with its "Defensive alliance with NATO" and Soon to be Neutral Hojhaist Albania making the claim
Stalin also "Capitulated to capital" on some occasions (Uniting Austria / Letting Greece And turkey join NATO etc) it Dosent make either of them not Socialist / Marxist in their outlook

Nikita fought against any socialist who argued direct collaboration with the west such as in Hungary

This didn't signal an abandonment of Marxism the USSR retained all fixtures of a socialist state under Nikita

No one was going to risk nuking the US
The USSR was ultimately the winner in the altercation as Cuba remained / has remained a Marxist ally and US nuclear missiles were removed from turkey

I find that most people that shit on Nikita for these nonsensical "revisionist" actions are either Hoxhaists desperate to defend every action of Stalin and hate him simply because of his denouncements of some of Stalins worse policies and Maoites desperate to justify Mao making probably one of the most destructive moves for 20th century Marxism (Sino-Soviet split / Alliance with NATO)

Attached: IMG_0115.JPG (471x650, 39.34K)

Reactionary feudal confucianist landlord detected

Attached: 38d8120227271fd113223ee99a22e67f1daaf9e43bb5f1896ced02a9dfdfacbf.jpg (948x711, 29.9K)

That's like reading someone's autobiography to judge him.

More bad than good. He stopped communist advancement which ended up with Maoist China being more internationalist than the USSR, and even though Stalin already started that with his retarded policy in Greece and lukewarm support for Korea Krushchev definitely intensified it.

He implemented austerity programs that led to wages being stagnant the first time since 1917. This led to strikes and first usage of tanks against the people.

He stopped cybernetic advances and experiments, although Stalin started that as well.

He ruled pretty much as a dictator. He blatantly disregarded Soviet institutions, this is also something Stalin started but that doesn't make it better. He also stopped the implementation of more worker's democracy and the role of unions, which let to the stratification of the managerial strata which ended up being reactionary in the 80s.

He's the first Soviet leader that didn't contribute anything to Marxist theory and had a crude understanding of Marxism which was enforced in the other COMECON countries which led to the rise of revisionism there as well.

The good things were obvious the increase in civil liberties, the corn thing (yes that was unironically good), the space program, the nuclear parity, and being a genuine communist (which I have my doubts about regarding the eyebrow man). Also, Maoists and Hoxhaists being autistic does not validate this criticism.

Honestly I think Grover Furr's antics like triggering the libs with "not one crime" are just a sales pitch for his works.

Krushchev inherited his "peaceful coexistence" stance from Lenin and Stalin who were both in favour of something similar after the Red Army was defeated before capturing Warsaw in the Soviet-Polish War. He just coined the term. You could argue that he was doing less internationalism over realpolitik but to call him a revisionist over that is laughable and grasping at straws set up by Chinese, Albanian and also North Korean propaganda.

Not only did economy stagnate under Br*hnev, but life expectancy fell and social ills like alcoholism and suicide rose.

I swear people on Zig Forums manage such amazing levels of stupidity. Thank you based poster.
Some people here just can't accept that the USSR was great, which goes to show you how easy it is to consume propoganda. What other country has ever achieved the social, political, economical, noun-al improvements the USSR had achieved in such a short time? Many countries have not achieved these improvements at all! What country has achieved these improvements from similair conditions? None of them, yet Zig Forums is convinced it was 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧(the leadership🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧) being "too authoritarian" or whatever. If they had been more authoritarian, they might have been able to resist revisionism and establish a more resilient communist society. But no, this is leftliberal land, where the individual is more important than the millions that will come after them. A State can't reeducate a citizen, but a citizen is allowed to brainwash as many children as they can have, in any way they choose. These are the fruits of true liberal "left" freedom. The freedom to do anything to anyone without state intervention, as long as it is "rightful."

America, Britain, Germany, Japan???

Isn’t this true of pretty much all Soviet leaders after Lenin?

Stalinist style purges and repression failed utterly in preventing revisionism. Even Albania, which conducted regular purges and maintained a highly restrictive and repressive state for 40 years straight turned revisionist immediately after Hoxha died.
That’s not the argument made by libertarian minded leftists at all. The argument is that a dictatorship of the proletariat can only be realized through proletarian democracy, which necessarily requires a degree of freedom of opinion and expression, the ability to hold officials and leaders accountable, etc. That’s the only way to actually check revisionism, by relying on the workers being capable of recognizing and protecting their own interests.

For fucks sake, user. Read a wiki page or something.

Stalin purging and killing aimlessly clearly didn't stop "Revisionism" in most people's minds as Khrushchev almost immediately came to power after Stalins death (Who wasn't a "Revisionist" but some Ultra's like to think he was)

If you go by a more Liberal definition of dictator then yes but comparative to the stalin administration Khrushchev's goverment was much more democratic in the sense that it listened to the Politburo and the Supreme soviet etc and was eventually forced to retire because of it opposed to Stalins privy council which he held late in his tenure

The what? These countries develop before the USSR was a thing.

There is a good takedown on /marx/ of an "anti Khrushchevite" at the bottom of this thread 8ch.net/marx/res/11391.html

America and Britain are capitals of imperialism. Germany is parasite too. Japan has developed later than USSR and a lot thanks to USSR (American gibs)

Japan industrialized in the 19th century.

And?