What do you think about N.S. Khrushchev?

[matevz91]

I am starting this thread to find out what you think about N.S.Khrushchev, about his reforms, his way of perceiving world, defending whole socialist commonwealth, his uncovering of Stalins crimes (20th congress), ...

I want also to find out your opinion about how he behaved during Caribbean crisis, his oust from power (1964), cup against him by Presideum (Malenkov, Shepilov, Molotov, Bulganin, ....) in 1957.

How do you see the "Khrushchevs military doctrine" - abandoning regular army and instead organizing territorial militia and shielding the whole socialist world with nuclear weapons?

How do you feel about his friendship with Rosevelt Garst (american millionare)? Do you consider his support of the space research as a good decision?

I will post a poll.

[#FF0000]

Khrushchev is a strong argument for Stalin's purges not going far enough

[Victory]

A revisionist social-imperialist with a lack of revolutionary qualities.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I see him in a somewhat positive light, 'thawing' the ussr after stalin, supporting several anti-imperialist causes, not starting WW3 when JFK practically tried to get him to...

[AK]

Same as the old boss.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The greatest godsend capitalism could have ever hoped for.

[Volcanicity]

Revisionist personified and an enemy of the people.

[RGacky3]

The greatest godsend capitalism could have ever hoped for.

That was Stalin, propeganda in the US against socialism uses Stalin, not Krushchev, and for good reason.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

That was Stalin, propeganda in the US against socialism uses Stalin, not Krushchev, and for good reason.

Riiight. Of course, if Trotsky had been at the helm, socialism would have a pristine perfect image in the West, wouldn't it?http://www.studenthandouts.com/Leon-Trotsky-Lev-Davidovich-Bronstein-USSR-Peace-and-Freedom-in-Sovdepiya-Anti-Semitic-White-Army-Propaganda-Poster-1919.jpg

[Revolutionair]

Well all in all leaders give a bad reputation to things. If anyone stands out he is bound to get targeted by propaganda machines.

[RGacky3]

Riiight. Of course, if Trotsky had been at the helm, socialism would have a pristine perfect image in the West, wouldn't

Who was talking about Trotsky????

[Revolutionair]

Haha that one was actually pretty funny.
Anti-Stalin??? TROTSKYITE FASCIST NEO NAZI BOURGEOISIE CAPITALIST TRAITOR!!

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Who was talking about Trotsky????

Well that's what it usually is ie. "Stalin was bad, if Trotsky had been in charge everyone would think socialism was good". If I assumed wrong then I apologise.

[RGacky3]

Well that's what it usually is ie. "Stalin was bad, if Trotsky had been in charge everyone would think socialism was good". If I assumed wrong then I apologise.

I am far from a Trotskyite, I think you've been talking to the wrong people.

[Bud Struggle]

That was Stalin, propeganda in the US against socialism uses Stalin, not Krushchev, and for good reason.

FYI: You are quoting me there. I've been sayiong for years on RevLeft that Stalin was the best thing that ever happened to Capitalism. :)

[matevz91]

With Khrushchev Soviet Union could be alive still today. It was on the road towards a superpower when he was in power.

Enemy of people??? [comment taken from durdles]. OK, whatever you think about his reforms, but this is too much. His son Sergei was along with his sisters being monitored by KGB, as was Nikita himself after 1964.

Khrushchev actually had feelings towards people fighting colonialism, he knew that USSR was in no favorable position but still he helped people around the world. For example, Afghanistan was very weak but he helped them to build a very important road from the north to south across the mountains. He did spend soviet money for that, but with it he won friendship and safety. If not he, then USA would come and establish bases with Peacemakers. Then he would have to spend large sums just to part them in this area of the world.

With Cuba he achieved his aim: he protected Cuba while at the same time did not start the another world war (the credit goes also to the Kennedy brothers, some of their colleagues, and to coolheads on both sides). He showed US citizen that they are no longer the safest nation on the world and that there is a country that can challenge them. Brezhnjev wanted to do that, but no one paid any attention to him. Khrushchev did not plan to do it, but he did.

Any arguments against?

[RGacky3]

I've been sayiong for years on RevLeft that Stalin was the best thing that ever happened to Capitalism.

And Ironically Stalin and all those guys used the word Socialism to justify their power, while the US uses Stalin to demonize the idea of socialism.

[Bud Struggle]

And Ironically Stalin and all those guys used the word Socialism to justify their power, while the US uses Stalin to demonize the idea of socialism.

Yea, but Stalin was using Socialism to make himself look good. Stalinism was in fact as bad as his detractors said. Stalin hurt Communism--I don't see how anyone could disputel that fact.

He was a meglomaniac: listen to the Soviet national anthum from 1949--Stalin's name in mentioned in it. Who else but the queen of England is mentioned personally in a national anthum while they are still a living ruler of the country?