i was only shitposting, the other guy didn't seem serious either
Can you be a Marxist-Leninist without liking Stalin...
James Sullivan
David Carter
You can't be Marxist if you think in terms of liking/disliking historical figures.
Which is unsurprising. Even Che was "Stalinist".
Also, last anti-Stalinist Marxist-Leninist movement ended up with Gorbachev. And nobody before him was particularly good (with the sole - and debatable - exception being Chernenko, but he didn't have enough time and was trying to revert destalinization).
MLs are also perfectly aware of what "criticism of Stalin" is meant to hide.
Most public "communists" are Liberal whores.
And Nazis called themselves Socialists.
Rejection of democratic centralism is usually understood as not adhering to Leninism.
Aiden Smith
So far, everything anti-Soviet keeps revealing itself as Right-wing.
Neither nomenklatura nor bureaucrats could constitute a separate class.
If you want to look for different class, then you should look at upper management and specialists (neither of those are identified as bureaucrats and nomenklatura) - those could (and I would argue they were), but they could be only Petit-Bourgeoisie (i.e. effectively self-employed). Not Capitalists.
Much bigger blunder was Reich selling their military technologies to Soviet Union.
That remains to be proven. Reich did not collapse after it failed Blitzkrieg of 1941 and fought for 3 more years. I.e. Soviet resources weren't that crucial.
Revisionist CPSU. The very same CPSU that accepted Khrushchev's speech which is objectively false.
Isaac Richardson
Khrushchev's speech wasn't even published in the USSR until 1989. This was the official evaluation of the CPSU concerning Stalin: archive.org
What made the CPSU after Stalin "revisionist"?
Jackson Rodriguez
Isn’t Krushchev recognized as a bad source on the Great Purge by the mainstream at this point?
Benjamin James
Not exactly. Historians always regarded Khrushchev's speech as self-serving since it sought to exonerate the CPSU, the Soviet system, and Khrushchev's own role as an associate of Stalin. That didn't mean the speech's main theme of "Stalin was suspicious and did bad things" was wrong, just distorted since the goal was to draw as sharp a distinction between the deceased Stalin and everything else as possible.
But when it comes to the statistics Khrushchev gave which I quoted (70% of members and candidate members of CC elected at 17th Congress were arrested and shot, similar fate met a majority of the delegates), they're regarded as correct. To my knowledge not even Furr disputes those two statistics.
Jaxon Hall
A wrong conception of communism. Krushchev thought that raw production output will lead to post-scarcity and distribution according to need. What he failed to realise is that communism also implies a change in social relations, which he severely undermined by giving the managerial class more power while reducing the amount of workers in the CPSU.
Dominic Jones
This is the same criticism Mao made of Stalin. Was Stalin also a "revisionist" in this sense?
I don't see how he substantially empowered managers. He reduced income differentials and, as the authors of The Myth of Capitalism Reborn note, "the decline of the proletarian composition of the party that had characterized the 20 years preceeding the 20th Congress was reversed beginning at the Congress."
To quote Szymanski (Is the Red Flag Flying? pp. 88-89):