Your opinions on Brezhnev.

[Omsk]

Comrades,what are your opinions on Leonid Brezhnev? The Soviet leader who increased the military might of the USSR and generally its influence,but also a leader who was known for the 'stagnation' period,which by some people,is the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
He had a long rule,second to that of comrade Joseph Stalin and a lot of historians 'accuse' him of having a cult of personality. (although their own,democratic and wise presidents all have cults.) On the other hand, In an opinion poll by VTsIOM in 2007 the majority of Russians wanted to live during the Brezhnev's era rather than any other period of Soviet-Russian history during the 20th century.)
An intriguing man,what are your opinions on him and his policies?

(this is a question for ML's mainly,but other may feel free to answer as well,as long as they don't simply spit on Brezhnev,i need solid opinions and arguments)

[opblitzkrieg]

Arguably the worst soviet premier. His reign was marked by stagnation, both militarily and economically. Despite what propaganda said the USA got the upper hand in the cold war during the Brezhnev years. He was also responsible for the creation of that horrible gerontocracy, leaving the USSR without a supply of young officials. He himself should have stepped down long before 1982.

[Red_Struggle]

He's nothing to write home about. He oversaw the Soviet-Afghan war, allowed the Kosygin reform to continue, enacted the Brezhnev doctrine of "limited soveirgnty, and suppressed the Soviet Revolutionary Communists (bolsheviks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Revolutionary_Communists_(Bolsheviks).

[CesareBorgia]

Arguably the worst soviet premier. His reign was marked by stagnation, both militarily and economically. Despite what propaganda said the USA got the upper hand in the cold war during the Brezhnev years. He was also responsible for the creation of that horrible gerontocracy, leaving the USSR without a supply of young officials. He himself should have stepped down long before 1982.

Worse than Gorbachev?

And he did try to step down, several times, but the politburo wouldn't allow it

[Delenda Carthago]

Jesus fuckin Christ Revleft...:huh:

[Red Future]

Jesus fuckin Christ Revleft...:huh:

To be fair Brehznev is a pretty unmentioned topic on Revleft so its good we are finally discussing him

[Delenda Carthago]

To be fair Brehznev is a pretty unmentioned topic on Revleft so its good we are finally discussing him
Yeah. Lets do talk about him.

Lets talk about the economy of his. Which made the gap between the working class and the bureocracy HUGE by promoting the monopoly of certain interests.

Lets talk about the spirit of communism, which was destroyed by the ideology of "the great nation united" and the "all people's state", instead of worker's state.

Lets talk about the tolerance, democracy and the freedom of speech, when you could be even send to mental institutes if you were critising the system or if you asked for a piece of meat.Lets talk about secret agencies like KGB and their role in the society.

Lets talk about the right of other nations self managing. Lets talk about imperialism. Afganistan, Berling wall, Cuba, Prague and others.

Lets talk about the role of military in the society and economy, when the whole Soviet Union became an endless military camp.


Lets do talk about our "comrade" Leonid.

[dernier combat]

The Soviet leader who increased the military might of the USSR and generally its influence,
Neither of these things mean anything for the working class. That's a pretty solid argument.

[Delenda Carthago]

By the way, I hope you do see the connection between the "Great Nation" and "All peoples state" and the current neonazi problem.

[Omsk]

Neither of these things mean anything for the working class. That's a pretty solid argument.
You people are getting boring with your constant: "Nothing for the working class!"

It was not an argument... I am not defending him,i am just pointing out the fact that the Soviet military might grew,and that its influence grew also,which in the long term,could in a number of ways help the working class.

But as far as i can see,people here are not fond of comrade Leonid.

[graymouser]

Brezhnev represented, in a way, the senility of the old bureaucracy. It was during his watch that the second economy really ballooned underneath the stagnant first economy, and the social basis for the restoration of capitalism was quietly built. Soviet foreign policy was also awful in this period; at least one can say that Khrushchev had embraced the Cuban revolution. From a Trotskyist point of view, of course the bureaucracies were corrupt as hell, but Brezhnev's rule more than anything represented their living off of past successes with surface tranquility while the rot continued inside.

[dernier combat]

You people are getting boring with your constant: "Nothing for the working class!"

It was not an argument... I am not defending him,i am just pointing out the fact that the Soviet military might grew,and that its influence grew also,which in the long term,could in a number of ways help the working class.

But as far as i can see,people here are not fond of comrade Leonid.
You wanted a solid opinion/argument. You got it. The expansion of a ruling class' military and global economic influence is counter-productive and not conducive to the interests of the working class.

I never implied you were defending him. I just gave what ought to be the communist viewpoint, albeit at its most basic yet fundamental level.

[Omsk]

All right,i misunderstood you,i thought you were commenting my line:
The Soviet leader who increased the military might of the USSR and generally its influence,
As the line itself (a fact,that the USSR achieved more military might) not the entire Brezhnev question.
Yes,the working class did not benefit from his rule,but i am interested which are,by you people:
The positive things he did.
The negative things he did.

[CesareBorgia]

the social basis for the restoration of capitalism was quietly built.

It was built long before.


Soviet foreign policy was also awful in this period; at least one can say that Khrushchev had embraced the Cuban revolution.

Brezhnev likewise embraced a host of petty-bourgeois nationalist regimes.

[graymouser]

It was built long before.
In general terms of the existence of the bureaucracy, that much is technically true. But I'm talking about the actual dynamic by which the ruling bureaucracy transformed itself into a capitalist class, which was most pronounced under Brezhnev's watch. The second economy hadn't existed under Stalin and Khrushchev to the same degree, and without it the wing of the bureaucracy that supported outright capitalist restoration was not sufficiently powerful to win it.

In general I think it's worth understanding more about the Soviet economy than "it offered the workers nothing." The Brezhnev period was not just one of the same old same old, it was qualitatively different than under Stalin or Khrushchev.


Brezhnev likewise embraced a host of petty-bourgeois nationalist regimes.
But none that led to a workers' state, even one with a lack of workers' democracy as was the case in Cuba.

[Tjis]

I think he was the most decorated soviet official during the entire soviet union (wikipedia claims he received over 200 medals). Clearly that means that he was a great hero of the soviet motherland and everyone who says otherwise is just jealous.

[Omsk]

I think he was the most decorated soviet official during the entire soviet union (wikipedia claims he received over 200 medals). Clearly that means that he was a great hero of the soviet motherland and everyone who says otherwise is just jealous.

Cut with the ridiculing nonsense.If you don't have anything to add up on this discussion,don't post at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the sphere of anti-colonial foreign policy, Mr. "Non-Capitalist Development" Brezhnev waffled back and forth between the consistency of Boris Ponomarev ("National-Democratic Revolution") and the realpolitik of Andrei Gromyko.

[Arlekino]

Worse than Gorbachev?

And he did try to step down, several times, but the politburo wouldn't allow it

I would not agree about that. Gorbochov's era is actually made more stagnation. Dry lows which absolutely drowned society to depression. Regards about Breznev well not perfect life but working class don't care his imperialist or not. I do remember on Soviet news was telling to us, that soviets helping for Afghanistan as called liberation from capitalism. Yes party members are corrupted of course but working class as well corrupted. Once again I will repeat collapse of Soviet Union done more damage to soviet population. I so and i had experience truth my family members and friends what happened to people. Can anybody believing that even blind people at work it was communities for disable people, it was holiday travelling around 15 countries freely, gov provided lot of activities, education was better.
I should not put my personal experience but sad story of my mothers and of course my. She was deaf and communist party member all her life, and collapse of socialism took her to alcoholism, depress life because she could not warm up with surrounding of capitalist society on the end she become very ill, well she told me "daugther would be nice if Stalins regime comeback", well what can i say, yes she was winner of Stalins regime because of collectivisation and she gained land as she came from poor family so she told me that was wonderful to get little land because she have to work for landlords like slaves and only what she get it old dress and little something to eat.

[gorillafuck]

He's nothing to write home about. He oversaw the Soviet-Afghan war, allowed the Kosygin reform to continue, enacted the Brezhnev doctrine of "limited soveirgnty, and suppressed the Soviet Revolutionary Communists (bolsheviks) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Revolutionary_Communists_(Bolsheviks).Excep t that group wasn't real.

[Optiow]

as far as i can see,people here are not fond of comrade Leonid.
Well to be quite honest, he was nothing more than a fop. That is the reason he is not discussed here very much. He didn't actually do anything worthwhile for the communist movement. As far as my research as taken me, he strengthened the bureauracy, neglected the working class, and fostered capitalism within the USSR.

I do not say this about many comrades, but there was aboslutely no merit to the man at all. He was a useless fop, so contributed very little towards the socialist movement.

[Ismail]

Except that group wasn't real.There were definitely Maoists and (after 1977) pro-Albanian persons inside the USSR. The East German section of the pro-Albanian KPD/ML distributed Russian-language material to Soviet Army newsstands calling on them to cease fighting in Afghanistan, for example, and there were Hoxha pamphlets published (illegally, of course) in Russian, as well as Albania itself broadcasting Radio Tirana in Russian.

Obviously like Trotskyism (and other isms sans, of course, Capitalism) neither one caught on.

As for Brezhnev, he was lame. MIM basically summed him up (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/brezh.html):

Leonid Brezhnev led the Soviet Union from 1964 (after Khruschev) till his death in 1982. His long rule shaped much of modern day revisionism and until the 1990s was the greatest influence numerically amongst those calling themselves communist in the West.

Because he ousted Khruschev and adopted a "neutral" policy toward Stalin, the Western imperialist press reviled him as harboring Stalinists. Although he replaced Khruschev, he kept the Soviet Union on a course to the right of Mao Zedong in China. Indeed, under Brezhnev, the phony Soviet Union actually carried out a border war against China and asked Nixon for permission to drop nuclear weapons on China.

Brezhnev's rule was known as a time of superpower contention with the United $tates. He pushed detente, but he also provided "aid" to Third World liberation struggles willing to adopt his party's revisionist theses. At the same time, people like Yeltsin and Gorbachev thrived under Brezhnev's rule and later came to criticize it for "stagnationism."

[Red_Struggle]

Except that group wasn't real.

Why? Because the wikipedia article calls it an Albanian Hoax? Yeah, sure. Don't bother doing any research or anything. Forget that they wrote a program in the 70s. It's all a farce cuz wikipedia said so.