Redpill me on Khruschev. Fill me in on his accomplishments and blunders. Overall was a good or bad general secretary?
Everyone after Stalin sucked ass. Stalin was just okay
The one good thing he did was btfo the Hungarian "revolitionaries" and no amount or crying by liberal newfags will ever convince me otherwise.
Destalinization was not only a slap in the face to everyone who helped defend the SU from obliteration during ww2 and after Lenin's death but also a tactical blunder almost as retarded as the Sino-Soviet split which he also had a huge hand in, as it gave tons of George Orwell tier leftists carte Blanche for the next 50 years to regurgitate literal Nazi and CIA propaganda about muh 80 trillion dead comrades because they were eternally pussyhurt about Kronatadt
Agree with other anons. Stalin's reputation and Communism's in the west was actually pretty stellar. Its not hard to find shit praising Stalin. Th USSR and by extensions Stalin and Communism were seen as saviors of Europe who took most of the brunt of the Nazis and later purged them from Europe.
The thing is Kruschev did everything in line with the "Stalinst/Bolsheveik" line of thought. Basically he didn't really change much to the USSR's system but denounced Stalin to see better.
This had terrible effects as it gave the CIA and USA propaganda for the Stalin killed a bajillion people myth, Western Communists started to distance themselves now creating the more liberal Eurocoms, and what I meant by how he wanted to keep the Stalinist shit while seeming like a good guy compared to Stalin relates to the Hungarian revolution.
The guy in charge of Hungary Rakosi was a Stalinist and open about it and was the man the USSR preferred. However Kruschev's Secret Speech made people dislike him since now people are hearing how bad Stalin is. Kruschev then did a 180 supporting the "Stalinsits in Hungary"
TBH it seemed pointless and peak autism for Kruschev to give a bone to the west and make shit up to seem better then Stalin, and it fucked up some of his own plans since he still wanted to support some of those "Stalinist" states like Cuba or Hungary.
he failed to use nukes during the cuban crisis
I try to be but the tranny janitor bans me :((USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
use the correct pronoun shitlord, it's her!
He denounced Stalin in an unmarxist way but was overall a communist and soviet union stayed Socialist during his lifetime.
One major criticism one could make is crticising his reform of how the socialist economy functions, he decentralized it and laid the focus of each business on making own profits wich did lead to an individualistic mindset, and that had devastating effects in the long run
Mao considered Stalin to be 70% correct and 30% wrong. The reverse would probably be true for Khruschev but what he did get right was his support for the soviet space program. He also did play the part of communist boogeyman rather well.
Even Deng wasn't pleased with cornman's De-Stalinization. I thinks this says it all.
Fucking this. Khrushchevis a Stalinist at heart, the guy was fucking obsessed with the thick bureaucracy that Stalin had created out of necessities and was scared shitless by progressive automation and computers. He can denounce Stalin all he wants but in the end his failures is to not change the party pass Stalin was his biggest mistake because it was the one that finally led the USSR to its later decline.
Man, I had never read anything from Deng before, but he sounds pretty based. Nice analysis.
I'm not sure if Khrushchev was right or wrong.
That's what people say about Mao, not Stalin.
That's what Mao said about Stalin. Why does that trigger you?
80% good 20% bad is what people say about Mao I think
What mao specifically said was (after kruschev's denunciation) something along the lines of 7 of Stalin's fingers being good, even if 3 of then were rotten
The USSR peaked under Khrushchev which is mostly a mark against Brezhnev. Khrushchev was an actual communist. Everyone knows about dude space lmao but the USSR produced 20% of world GDP in 1960, backed many anti-colonial and anti-imperial struggles and effectively liberated hundreds of millions of people. But it also kinda stagnated after that, especially lifespan is a bit disappointing but that was very specifically a soviet problem as Cuban and Chinese lifespans grew gradually and surpassed the Soviets (and recently Cuban lifespan surpassed the US). Perhaps the USSR was lacking a system of preventative health care like Cuba has?
It's what Mao said about Stalin and also what people say about Mao.
Why can't you take responsibility for your failures, like the historical materialists you pretend to be ? If your system creates more opposition than it can endure, that's your system which is to blame, not the opposition.
This. Stalinists always turn into the worst idealists whenever their failures are brought up. They throw dialectical reasoning out the window and claim that their system worked just fine until it just collapsed one day due to some sinister kabal of wreckers. What they never admit is how aspects of their system created these wreckers or made their sabotage possible. It’s even worse when you look at popular anti-Soviet movements like Hungary 56 or Solidarnosc, where they say that it was entirely the fault of CIA agitation without considering how the material conditions of ML socialism made ordinary workers susceptible to that agitation.
Peaceful coexistence was a sensible and pragmatic policy given the disparity that existed between the two superpowers. It allowed increased focus on social spending and increasing standards of living rather than on defence.
MLs were very accommodating initially, it was only after liberal-leaning types constantly attacked them that they were forced to adopt more authoritarian measures. A “socialist” revolutionary attempted to assassinate Lenin, it was only after that and the assassination of the head of the Moscow Cheka that the Red Terror began. It should have started sooner
The Bolsheviks weren’t ML’s until after Stalin took power. The split between ML and Trots hadn’t happened yet and there was only Leninists.
So going against anarchists, narodniks, libertarian socialists etc. is alright as long as it's not Trots lmao
Well, if yoyr system works so well that frequently regular workers go against it, and they are also are dealt with violently, perhaps there's something wrong about the system?
I guess we should not fight fascists because regular workers join them too, stop idolizing "the worker". They are a product of their biology and environment and some of them will serve the reaction, whether knowingly or not.
There's a very good reason besides "muh CIA" that communism has a very mixed reputation in eastern Europe. Those protest were workers just asking for higher wages or more consumer goods. In nearly all of these protest you have deathtolls that go well above 100. It's not like they were special agents sent by America.
I guess we should fight regular workers because we know better than them too.
Stop idolizing yourself.
And how many would have died of poverty, preventable disease, homelessness etc. if liberalism had been given ground? You say that was not what they wanted, but it is what they got when “they” won. The capitalists do not have to literally send protestors over the atlantic to fund, organize and utilize these protests.
Most workers supported the USSR and did not want its dissolution.
Too bad your system made them powerless to defend it against the dominant class it created, then.
Why do Stalinists always develop a fucking god complex? FYI, the government is made out of fallible people too. Stalin wasn't a 4D Chess wizard, he and his underlings were perfectly capable of making mistakes that resulted in people dying. It's okay to admit you spilled some milk, mistakes need to be learned from to minimize them later on.
This but unironically. Hundreds of billions will suffer and die meaningless deaths for the enrichment of a few if we do not overthrow the capitalist order.
Except unlike Stalin with the Great Purge, Lenin’s justifications for going after fellow leftists weren’t totally fabricated.
We already know. Tankies aren't good at stopping libertarians.
But oh boy, I sure hope you don't see what the rest of eastern bloc's citizens thought of the USSR.
Lmao that’s not even true. Workers were always underrepresented in fascist movements, but they formed the backbone of some dissident movements in the Warsaw Pact. If a socialist state is alienating workers to the point where they are joining dissident mass movements then it says more about that state then those workers.
If you are telling workers in a socialist state what they ought to want rather than asking them what they want and then doing it, you are a gravedigger of the revolution.
NOT ONE CRIME
Correct, the defendants of the Moscow Trials were not guilty of a single crime.
I'm curious, I can't find any data on it.
These figures are from pew research, which is the same group that puts out figures on how people regret the return of capitalism. While it’s true that many today in Eastern Europe regret the collapse of socialism (including an absolute majority in many countries) at the time they were glad to see it go.
Election results speak for themselves.
Reminds me of the joke: "What could capitalism prove in 1 year that communism couldn't prove in 70 years? That communism works."
Reminder that MLs didn't manage to overthrow the capitalist order and stopped trying once Stalin got he wanted.
Ehh, I have a very mixed opinion of Stalin, but the SU never really stopped with trying with overthrowing capitalism. It certainly was a force of good, and no matter how much I shit on it to snap tankies out of their I D E O L O G Y, I have much more good than bad to say about it.