Khrushchev BTFO

So now that the revisionists are losing, how will they fight back the stalinization of the proles? More and more people, at least in Russia are seeing uncle Joe in a better light. Will they try to push the 100 gorillion narrative? Or hope this blows over? Quite frankly, I think this is more of a reaction to the failings of capitalism and the fact that Stalin is a prominent communist figure that people are more willing to see absolve him of revisionist crimes.

Attached: he was right.jpg (850x400, 59.42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

How are we sure the pro-stalinist russians aren't mostly nationalists priding themselves on Stalin for reasons unrelated to communism?

Actually, you got me. I'm not sure. It seems like a step in the right direction however. Even if these nationalists aren't able to see eye to eye with his politics, making Stalin less taboo would allow people to learn about him and the USSR at the time instead of the usual "muh kulaks", "muh 100 gorillion".

not really, the CPSU post-1956 just took a more critical look at Stalin. Cornman never said Stalin was bad, he said he was an important figure in the building of socialism and a great revolutionary, but made some poor judgements and centralised power towards the end of his life (this is objective fact). could destalinsation have been handled better? yes, but it was inevitable and would have happened regardless of whether or not Khrushchev succeeded him (Malenkov already planted the seeds early on). most people forget that the secret speech was mainly a political move to get a one-up over his opposition, and soon after the CPSU ditched it and instead referred people to this more punctual document instead:
going all Grover Furr and acting like Khruschev was some Trotsky or Gorbachev-tier wrecker who completely slandered Stalin as "ebil bureaucrat not true socialist man" just makes MLs look like retarded hero worshipper dindus, and it's important that we look at the USSR from an objective lense instead of blaming all the problems on some revisionist boogeyman who single-handedly ruined everything the Soviets had achieved (which is the equivalent of Wehraboos saying "oh well Hitler would have won WWII if it wasn't for his incompetent generals!")

Attached: 4d1e978fb9c2c6e560aee2e664580777f680054e4e365cc5be6908bd04dcfc56.jpg (749x960, 148.94K)

The Secret Speech still remained one of the biggest cornerstones in demonisation of Stalin. Before that, even in the West, Stalin wasn't seen as that horrible monster people now talk about him, Hannah Arendt, Pablo Picasso and even most SuccDem labour leaders liked Stalin, but his public image never recovered because Cornholio delivered the West the biggest delegitimisation of socialism on a silver platter. It's the origin of what we deal with today, and was also a slap in the face of all communists who held onto Stalin and were dependent on the CPSU.

That released this work later that you linked doesn't matter, nobody gave a fuck, damage was done.

By learning Russian language and studying Russian political landscape and learning that in 2019 there are many different political parties and many people with different political views and that most of Russian nationalist dislike Georgian Stalin and Jew Lenin.

Eh. The electorate of the Liberal Democratic Party (nationalists) liked Stalin more than the electorate of the KPRF.

the point of my post wasn't whether or not he influenced the views of the west, it is that Khrushchev, despite his criticisms, wasn't anti-Stalin.
i don't know were you got the idea that Stalin was viewed positively by the west until the secret speech. most of the old left (including the social democrats, who were more socialist than socdems nowadays) were fond of him due to the fact that he was a socialist leader and most leftists supported the USSR before the recent decades in which shitting on the Soviets has become the norm among 90% of non-MLs (which is pretty much due to the fact that Gorbachev fucked over everything and it's easy to slander a country which no longer exists and has a lot of it's history obstructed by lies).
as for the governments and most of the general population, he was always viewed poorly due to the anti-communist nature of the west, and this sentiment only seized briefly during WWII when the USSR was seen as one of the good guys in the fight against fascism.
the whole "horrible monster" thing didn't really occur until the 70s-80s when books like the Gulag Archipelago were published, and criticisms of communism went from "it isn't efficient in the long run and uses repression" to "Stalin starved and gulaged 100 gorillion people".

What gets me is not that there's criticism, it's that the west somehow doesn't understand that they also use repression and committed far worse acts in the name of nationalism and/or capitalism. Such as Churchill starving the Indians and Bengalies. Or the super exploitation and slavery of the third world. Or that they're doing it RIGHT NOW and they don't care. Or that they're fixing to destroy the world just because they want to drive a car. At least the gulaging of the kulaks wasn't just because. Hoarding grain during a drought and all

Attached: but gulags tho.jpg (300x306 15.06 KB, 175.21K)

well remember user, as long as you have muh free market and let people have the allusion of freedom, you can commit as many atrocities as you want.

You should read Losurdo's biography of Stalin. It opens with an account of how many Western elites and thinkers were positively predisposed to Stalin before the Cold War propaganda ramped up.

Losurdo isn't a by-the-book Stalinist but he's explaining it pretty well how Krushchev's Secret Speech made a huge impact on the general narrative about Stalin in the West. If the USSR kept a line akin to "Stalin did nothing wrong, he was based and redpilled" the ocean of propaganda would have been much shallower. And if you think about it, states like China or Vietnam are much better off with that line (not denouncing Mao or Ho Chi Minh). The USSR and it's influenced states literally tore down Stalin statues to make a point whereas China builds fucking monuments for Mao, and modern China is arguably much more "revisionist" than post-Stalin USSR.

Attached: 510602595236993465f57ee9274c9fa63a79c4fd06e6618897a3dddec32789aa.jpg (1590x1002, 250.29K)

Um… guys….

Attached: Stalin Quotes.png (1600x900, 176.4K)

That first fake quote is unironically true and I love it. Also

Attached: lwa akko324.jpg (422x360, 38.45K)

tbh since stalin gets blamed for the holodomor as a "genocidal famine" the bengal famine should be blamed on churchill just the same since he was actually racist towards indians and didn't give a shit about the suffering even if the justification for that lack of food supplies was that "the japanese would seize them if they invaded"

Anti communist left already coalesced by the late 1940s retard.

My favorite quote by Stalin.

Attached: Quotes.png (633x281, 74.23K)

Attached: ece11b63380081dd3fa602d19fc4d7544adbce2e.jpg (960x768 132.91 KB, 123.83K)

I would like to thank the scholars here for these
t. armchair

Attached: 52a08742268e49913c627ab37080b578d58b5e7e0fa5035c8d3c79ac89110b37.png (1676x937, 1.76M)

They forgot his most famous quote, "fried babies are delicious"

"Finna dab on kulaks"

Attached: stalin.jpg (992x558, 72.05K)

Thought I might post this. Quick warning, prepare for "muh kulaks" cringe

I'd argue it's more important how Russians feel about Lenin today. Last time I checked, I heard some people still think he was a german agent, which is literal menshevik propaganda.

Attached: 1432650239658587.png (285x350, 64.13K)

U don't

"Hitler was a liberal" - Comrade Stephen Crowder

Attached: xd4MovLiolBO3IcV.mp4 (490x360, 1.41M)

Stalin killed 9000000000000000000000 gorillion innocent nazis and ate all their bread himself.

holy shit that's so fucking fitting

Attached: dddkl11.jpg (710x781, 72.65K)