Any Khrushchevites?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[RedStarOverChina]

I've always wondered: how do trotskyists perceive this shift in the Soviet Union?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Given that Kruschev was fully supportive of Stalin's actions up until his death, it would then be politically troublesome to then support the same guy when he denounces his former leader.

I think we can all agree that Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko did little to advance Socialism in the USSR, even if perhaps they were not the 'bane of the workers' that they are presented as, by Marxist-Leninists. In truth, there was much wrong with the USSR before Kruschev came to power, and whilst he most certainly took a different path to Stalin, as did those who came to power post-Kruschev, it was not, unfortunately, in the direction of Socialism.

To me, the fact that we talk of the different periods of Soviet history in this dynastic manner - the Stalin era, Kruschev era, Brezhnev era and so on, strikes me as inherently un-Socialist. The hierarchical nature of the USSR was ultimately its downfall, as centralisation and bureaucracy gained the upper hand, and eventually allowed the rise of bourgeois lackeys in the ilk of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and for them to destroy the USSR from within.

[manic expression]

Khrushchev was such an uncompromising, almost eccentric, personality, that his policies were much the same. I can't see anyone being a "Khrushchevite" in any significant sense because he added almost nothing important to Marxist theory, and in addition was quite the contradictory figure in many ways. In my mind, the question is not "are you a Khrushchevite?" but instead "what do you think of Khrushchev?".

The following is simply my personal impressions, I'm open to discussion on them: The Sino-Soviet Split was a disaster that Khrushchev could have taken steps to avoid; the Virgin Lands Campaign was initially a smashing success but was later mismanaged and its potential lost; the Cuban Missile Crisis was very much mishandled by Khrushchev IMO, even if Khrushchev did well in putting Soviet resources into Cuba before and after the imperialist invasion; Soviet and Warsaw Pact intervention in Hungary was the appropriate response to a tough problem; Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin was, at the very least, based on exaggeration and its lack of subtlety played directly into the hands of the enemies of socialism...a more measured, reasoned criticism of Stalin through the mechanisms of democratic centralism (honest and forthright debate within the communist movement) would have been far more helpful and less destructive; Khrushchev's attacks on Soviet architecture were very unnecessary, very ill-advised ("Stalinist architecture" was a distinct, dynamic and diverse style)...more importantly, what he replaced it with was undoubtedly worse (the stereotypical dull Soviet housing unit comes from Khrushchev's architectural meddling, IIRC).

Those are just a few of Khrushchev's important policies and positions. Does anyone else have any opinions on them?

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ I'd agree. Khrushchev was not exactly the hammer in our sickles :laugh: but yeah, his policies seemed a little too revisionist, & his pretending to be on the side of Stalin until his death was quite annoying to read about, given that he went ass-backwards after Stalin's death. Most wouldn't say this, but Stalin never should've died!

[Uppercut]

^ I'd agree. Khrushchev was not exactly the hammer in our sickles :laugh: but yeah, his policies seemed a little too revisionist, & his pretending to be on the side of Stalin until his death was quite annoying to read about, given that he went ass-backwards after Stalin's death. Most wouldn't say this, but Stalin never should've died!

Not to mention that he wanted power to execute/imprision 20.000 people in the Ukrainian SSR. Thankfully, he was denied this power.

[FSL]

Given that Kruschev was fully supportive of Stalin's actions up until his death, it would then be politically troublesome to then support the same guy when he denounces his former leader.



Democratic centralism. The course was decided in congresses and cc meetings, not by individuals.



Those are just a few of Khrushchev's important policies and positions. Does anyone else have any opinions on them?

You're leaving out the most important of his reforms, replacing the all-union central plan with regional planning.

[red cat]

Democratic centralism. The course was decided in congresses and cc meetings, not by individuals.

Democratic centralism does not determine the behaviour of an individual outside party matters. Do you know about Khruschevs' personal attitude towards Stalin when he was alive?

[FSL]

Democratic centralism does not determine the behaviour of an individual outside party matters. Do you know about Khruschevs' personal attitude towards Stalin when he was alive?


Are you asking me whether they were friends or in good terms with each other? So that what he said post 1956 would constitute backstabbing and make him a bad person?

Destalinization was decided in the 20th Congress. Khruschev wasn't the right wing of the party at that time. Or more precisely he was the left wing in the right wing (which was awfully large). It's not necessary that his actions reflect his own thoughts but rather the thoughts of the central commitee.

I prefer to judge policies rather than wonder about people's characters and such. I disagree with the reforms of that era (one being the anti-Stalin propaganda to cover an attack on socialism itself). That's about all I can say.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Khrushchev represented the end of "socialist primitive accumulation" that began in the late 1920s. A minimum wage was introduced, industrial housing projects to counter war-resulting homelessness were initiated, and agriculture was reorganized to favour the sovkhozy model over the kolkhozy model (despite the Virgin Islands fiasco, this shift was continued after Khrushchev's ouster).

[LeninBalls]

Don't the PSL view the USSR as socialist throughout it's entire existence, which obviously includes Khruschev's era?

[OCMO]

^ I'd agree. Khrushchev was not exactly the hammer in our sickles :laugh: but yeah, his policies seemed a little too revisionist, & his pretending to be on the side of Stalin until his death was quite annoying to read about, given that he went ass-backwards after Stalin's death. Most wouldn't say this, but Stalin never should've died!
I prefer to say Lenin never should've died.