Who Do You Hate More? Kruschev or Breznehv

[LeninKobaMao]

Well I hate Kruschev more because I think he is slightly more revisionist and was a walking disaster.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Kruschev, because I'm sick of seeing right-wingers throw this quote around all the time:


We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism,
until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.

[khad]

Well I hate Kruschev more because I think he is slightly more revisionist and was a walking disaster.
Are you kidding me? Under Brezhnev you saw the first signs of social decay in the USSR, including the explosion of alcoholism (for some reason the Soviet sobriety campaign was fairly effective until Brezhnev), the decline of male life expectancy, and the stagnation of the economy. They were both revisionist, but one oversaw the beginnings of material regression.

Nevertheless, the antipathy I may have for either is completely dwarfed and overshadowed by the pure hatred I have for that backstabbing traitor bastard Gorbachev.

[scarletghoul]

Brezhnev, because he fucked up big time (as Khad pointed out above), laying the foundations for Gorbachev and collapse of the USSR. Kruschev at least kept shit together somewhat and was much more competant than Brezhnev. Brezhnev also had a stupid cult of personality that no one really believed. He was a joke.

[scarletghoul]

However a 2006 opinion poll says that apparently most Russians think life under Brezhnev was the best
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/opinion_poll_most_russians_still_view_soviet_commu nist_party_as_beneficial_01182.html



The article also noted that the Russians also hold the view that life was at its best between the mid-1960s and early 1980s, when Leonid Brezhnev (a leader who was not renowned for his dynamism or charisma) was the General Secretary of the Comminist Party:
"No wonder so many Russians are ready to accept a one-party system and a special role for United Russia, and see Leonid Brezhnev, once no more than the butt of humiliating jokes, as the man whose rule was the strongest (after Stalin), and under whom life was at its best."

[khad]

However a 2006 opinion poll says that apparently most Russians think life under Brezhnev was the best
http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/opinion_poll_most_russians_still_view_soviet_commu nist_party_as_beneficial_01182.html
That's largely because Kruschchev was still rebuilding from war damage. One's perception becomes immediately skewed when one has reminders all around of the catastrophe that had just occurred. Nevertheless, Soviet statistics regarding health and anthropometrics showed that people were not as healthy under Brezhnev. (Even smoking and lung cancer rates went up under him!) In addition, Brezhnev had more prestige projects involving the military, which some take a lot of pride in.

[BabylonHoruv]

Stalin. Brezhnev and Kruschev just continued a train that Stalin set on the rails (the rails that Lenin built)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Stalin. Brezhnev and Kruschev just continued a train that Stalin set on the rails (the rails that Lenin built)

Whoa, way to bring up Stalin when he's not even part of the question. :rolleyes:

[khad]

Whoa, way to bring up Stalin when he's not even part of the question. :rolleyes:
And he got Lenin in there too for good measure. It's like the communist version of Godwin's law.

This anti-Soviet rhetoric is so overdone.

[Holden Caulfield]

Individuals do not make politics, perhaps you should study the Soviet Policy of the Stalinist epoch and make more informed opinions.

(says me who just read Marcuse's 'Soviet Marxism' on a plane haha)

[cb9's_unity]

They were both monsters who inherited a monstrous and deformed country. Even if they were good people (which they weren't) there would have been almost no way to revive the imperialist, anti-democratic, and wholly un-socialistic mess the USSR had become.

The only good thing they did was set up the eventual downfall of the USSR. Now that workers are once again struggling against the capitalists and not the 'Communist' Party history may have a chance to progress the way Marx predicted.

[khad]

They were both monsters who inherited a monstrous and deformed country. Even if they were good people (which they weren't) there would have been almost no way to revive the imperialist, anti-democratic, and wholly un-socialistic mess the USSR had become.

The only good thing they did was set up the eventual downfall of the USSR. Now that workers are once again struggling against the capitalists and not the 'Communist' Party history may have a chance to progress the way Marx predicted.
Refer yourself to this thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/collapse-ussr-small-t114526/index.html

:rolleyes:

[Revy]

Brezhnev.

[Revy]

They were both monsters who inherited a monstrous and deformed country. Even if they were good people (which they weren't) there would have been almost no way to revive the imperialist, anti-democratic, and wholly un-socialistic mess the USSR had become.


How about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Stalinization) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev_Thaw)?

Of particular interest:

Khrushchev finally liberated millions of peasants; by his order the Soviet government gave them identifications, passports, and thus allowed them to move out of poor villages to big cities. Massive housing construction, known as khrushchevkas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka), was undertaken during the 1950s and 1960s. Millions of cheap and basic residential blocks of low-end flats were built all over the Soviet Union to accommodate the largest migration ever in the Soviet history, when masses of landless peasants moved to Soviet cities. The move caused a dramatic change of the demographic picture in the USSR, and eventually finalized the decay of peasantry in Russia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't forget that it was Khrushchev who carried out what Stalin was too afraid to do: getting past the artel model and on with sovkhozization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_crisis_of _1928).

[ComradeOm]

Are you kidding me? Under Brezhnev you saw the first signs of social decay in the USSR, including the explosion of alcoholism (for some reason the Soviet sobriety campaign was fairly effective until Brezhnev), the decline of male life expectancy, and the stagnation of the economy. They were both revisionist, but one oversaw the beginnings of material regressionThat's because Khrushchev was the true revisionist - he was part of the systematic move away from the decaying Stalinist system. Not all of his programmes were successes and he made may mistakes but the direction of his reforms was clear. In contrast Brezhnev, while unable to restore Stalinist entirely, did mark a clear defeat for the reforming tendencies. The economic stagnation was matched, and perhaps caused, by the complete inertia of the political class. It was during this period that the bureaucratic ownership (rather than control) of the Soviet state really began to take shape and the fate of the USSR was largely decided

The mistake that is so common on these boards is assuming that 'revisionism' is itself a mortal sin

[khad]

That's because Khrushchev was the true revisionist - he was part of the systematic move away from the decaying Stalinist system. Not all of his programmes were successes and he made may mistakes but the direction of his reforms was clear. In contrast Brezhnev, while unable to restore Stalinist entirely, did mark a clear defeat for the reforming tendencies. The economic stagnation was matched, and perhaps caused, by the complete inertia of the political class. It was during this period that the bureaucratic ownership (rather than control) of the Soviet state really began to take shape and the fate of the USSR was largely decided

The mistake that is so common on these boards is assuming that 'revisionism' is itself a mortal sin
You pretty much hit it on the head. I actually kind of like Khruschchev, and I think he is perhaps unfairly maligned by all varieties of leftists, some over "revisionism," and others for his role in the Hungarian incident. As I said, the first signs of social decay and economic rot came under Brezhnev; until then, the material conditions of the Soviet people had been progressing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Who said that Brezhnev (or even Suslov and Shelepin) tried to "restore Stalinism entirely"? For that to happen, purges would have had to occur.

Mind you, the environment of the post-war Stalin regime itself was conducive to the rise of his "revisionist" successors, because of the war. The purges were "outsourced" to Eastern Europe, while "opportunists" at home repeated history. Suslov was interested mainly in Stalin's reputation.

[cccplikai]

Khrushchev even more annoying, some of his practical. To give an obvious example, corn ~ re-look at his relationship with Chairman Mao, he would like the Chinese do? Although I am a Chinese from the Soviet Union and Maoist ~ ~ I am not a road I yearn for the Soviet Union, I was Stalinism, but I have to say I am Chinese, so do Khrushchev hurt us feelings! He was 20 to completely negate the Soviet Stalin, the impact of causing bad thinking ~ can be said to be chaotic! Suslov was finally out and thank formation continue, there is nothing to do! There is, he separated from local party committees, in part to the specialized management of the economy, would like to break the Stalin period of highly centralized economic system, the result? His "full party," the slogan of the proletariat, the Communist Party rejected the party ~ for the subsequent disintegration of a foundation in thought ~

Come take a look at Brezhnev, have to admit that his time is a serious bureaucratic, but also to their own approach to a lot of medals ~ However, he developed the slogan of socialism is the best welfare of the Soviet period, the entire ~ Sweden were on welfare benefits and other countries engaged in pursuing, the Soviet Union countries such as ~ can not engage the Russian people now vote now, Brezhnev in second place ~

In fact, they compared the tone, not as a direct criticism of Gorbachev!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Marcuse's 'Soviet Marxism' on a plane
I've had it with these motherfucking Soviet Marxisms on this motherfucking plane! ;) (old meme, I know.)

[Ismail]

Khrushchev and Brezhnev were sorta inseparable, really. Brezhnev was more corrupt and continued paving the way for more state capitalism by allowing managers to hire and fire their workers, set wages, etc., just at a slower and more cautious rate. Both were social-imperialists (Khrushchev had Hungary, Brezhnev had Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan), both were revisionists (Khrushchev gave up proletarian dictatorship in favor of a "state of the whole people," Brezhnev continued with it), both played grab-ass with the USA except in certain times of tension (e.g. Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), and both were as a whole a negative influence on the international socialist movement, which by Brezhnev's time was already well contested by the Chinese line.

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html