Hi everyone, I'm a Nikita Khrushchev fan

[xxxxxx666666]

Hi everyone, I'm a Nikita Khrushchev fan.

I like Nikita Khrushchev because I think he would've made socalism the way it should be if he hadn't been overthrown and if he hadn't try to grow corn in the freezing Soviet soil, as well as for his denouncement of Stalin ( a brave act imo) and for opening up the USSR somewhat.

[Popular Front of Judea]

A brave man. Pro tip: make sure you have an exit at all times. Oh and write your blood type on your arm with a marker.

[Red_Banner]

What's your feelings on Mao?


:laugh:

[argeiphontes]

Well, keep waving your shoe at capitalism, I guess. ;) Welcome to the board.

[Red Commissar]

Oh boy, you're going to make lots of friends with the love for Khrushchev on these forums ;)

[Blake's Baby]

Welcome to RevLeft.

Most of the Stalinists we have here are real Tankies, and some are Maoists, so you should be prepared for some 'lively'* debates. Most of the rest of us couldn't care less for Kruschev because we think that, if there was anything progressive about the Soviet Union in the first place, it was long dead by 1956.

But don't let that stop you. By the same token, Kruschev's no worse than Stalin, Gorbachev or Brezhnev, or any other leaders of the USSR.

*substituting the word 'vicious' here would possibly be more accurate.

[Goblin]

Khruschevite huh? Now that's interesting! Can't say we have any other people like you on here. Like most people on here i'm not a Khrushchev fan at all. As a matter of fact, i have a strong dislike for the man. There was literally nothing socialist about him or his rule. Oh well, i hope you enjoy the forum, i'm looking forward to seeing you post (though i think you might be a troll).

[Popular Front of Judea]

So OP have you read Red Plenty (http://www.redplenty.com/Red_Plenty/Front_page.html) yet?

[Skyhilist]

http://t.qkme.me/3t4078.jpg

[Sea]

That shoe throwing photo is actually a fake.

Question to the OP: How much do you know about Bulganin? And don't just say "he was the fat one".

this is gonna get interesting...

[Comrade Jacob]

Why did you start with that? Whatever...
Welcome to revleft.

[d3crypt]

Not a popular position.

[Red_Banner]

The thing I do like about Kruschev is he got rid of the NKVD and gave the Republics control over the Militia.

[Questionable]

Welcome,

what is your stance on Khrushchev's successors? Brezhnev, Gorbachev, etc?

[Remus Bleys]

That shoe throwing photo is actually a fake.
The joke didn't do anything to you.
Why'd you have to kill it?

[xxxxxx666666]

Hi again you all.

Why did I start with this?

Well, Khrushchev did make reforms to make the USSR more open.

He did admit to the wrongs of the Stalin's era.

He did try to improve the living conditions of the common people in the USSR.

He freed all those political prisoners from Stalin's time.

And so on, he seems to be a true communist, in my view, just as Czech under Alexander Dubček before the Warsaw pact invasion seemed to be making strides towards true workers socalist country, after all power to the people.

That shoe throwing photo is actually a fake.

Question to the OP: How much do you know about Bulganin? And don't just say "he was the fat one".

this is gonna get interesting...

I know that he was allied with Khrushchev against Malenkov during the power struggle in the USSR after Stalin's death and was an ally and a supporter of Nikita during most of the era when Khrushchev was in power and in February 1960 he was retired on a pension.

[xxxxxx666666]

What's your feelings on Mao?


:laugh:


To be honest I don't know enough about him, yet, to have any feelings for or against him. (And I always perfer having more information about a person before making decisons like that)

Though this may change.

For the record I know that Khrushchev and Mao didn't get along very well, especially after Khrushchev visited the US and gave the licence to manufacture Mig-21's to India before he gave it to China, but Khrushchev did gave atomic bomb plans to China.

I also failed to see why he was hated, granted some of his reforms failed, but at least he tried to improve people's live improved under him and he was, in my perhaps ignorant opinion better than Stalin,though perhaps I'm just ignorant.

Perhaps you anti Khrushchev's could enlighten me?

I'll start a thread on this in the learning section so feel free to debate there, perhaps someone can post a link to it when it shows up?

[Blake's Baby]

The wish is the father of the deed, or whatever that saying is.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-opinion-nikita-t183658/index.html?t=183658

[adipocere]

Welcome,

what is your stance on Khrushchev's successors? Brezhnev, Gorbachev, etc?

It's ok...you can say it.

Boris Yeltsin.

[Brutus]

Avoid Ismail.

[redguarddude]

Khrushchev actually did pound his shoe on the table at a United Nations meeting in the early 1960's.

[The Aesthete]

I am actually quite fond of Krushchev as well. Not my favourite, but I do like him.

[xxxxxx666666]

Thank you, Blake's Baby for the link, feel free to discuss your opinions there about Khrushchev there if you have strong opinions about him.


And thank you everyone for your welcomes!!

[Sam_b]

Obviously intros and not a debate thread but I wanted to bring a couple of things up.

Hi new member, welcome to the board. I'm a PhD student who specialises in Czechoslovakia and thought what you said here was quite interesting:


And so on, he seems to be a true communist, in my view, just as Czech under Alexander Dubček before the Warsaw pact invasion seemed to be making strides towards true workers socalist country, after all power to the people.

The pedantic point is that we should call what the state at the time was - Czechoslovakia. Remember Dubček was a Slovak himself and at least notionally there was supposed to be parity between Czech and Slovak lands.

What do we mean here by a true workers socialist country? We cannot roll everything together here, ie the political line that Dubček advocated and the economic line taken with the attempt to hold a position against that of Antonín Novotný. Let's not forget that Dubček was secretary of the KSS, the Slovak party, before rising up to head the KSČ. He did this while robustly backing the Soviet line against other reformers in both parties. Loosening of the press restrictions in the later period of the 1960s before normalisation was one which was a public pressure, rather than a fully advocated, move: pressure which originated in Slovakia under the less widely-known Bratislava Spring and a manoeuvre in order to try and cement himself at the top of that chain, knowing full well what Brezhnev was saying about the Novotný leadership at the time.

Economics is a different story, and this was done not by Dubček but rather the pressure of liberal reformers in the party headed prominently by Ota Šik. He was forced to a position, he wasn't fighting for a worker's state or whatever. Indeed, the reforms that were passed were far less than what Šik et al were supporting! The assertion of people power and so on would only be true if the P.S reforms were done by a real movement from below, rather they were the results of a huge faction fight within the Czechoslovak Communist Party.

[xxxxxx666666]

Ok, perhaps I'm more ignorant of the situation in Czechoslovakia than I would have wanted. Thanks for giving me the information, Sam_b.

Perhaps you could give some good references where I may start to get a more detailed and accurate picture on what happened during Prague Spring? And everyone else of course, please feel free to provide some more references and information as I believe that no one should be ignorant.

[Sam_b]

I mean, I'm obviously biased as it's been written by someone I know, but I heartily recommend Mary Heimann's Czechoslovakia: The State that Failed. You can get a copy here (http://www.amazon.com/Czechoslovakia-The-State-That-Failed/dp/0300172427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380761499&sr=8-1&keywords=mary+heimann) quite reasonably priced. It's a controversial book that's been attacked in the Czech press and by some academics (the review section here is fun!), but I think it's a comprehensive coverage of the whole history of the Czechs without the histrionics.

Feel free to send me a PM or whatever if you're interested in anything related to the Czechs, especially with regards to culture and cinema. Hope this is a good book to start with!

[Sea]

I know that he was allied with Khrushchev against Malenkov during the power struggle in the USSR after Stalin's death and was an ally and a supporter of Nikita during most of the era when Khrushchev was in power and in February 1960 he was retired on a pension.Yeah, uh, crap, I meant to say Malenkov, not Bulganin.

[Taters]

as well as for his denouncement of Stalin ( a brave act imo)

It doesn't seem so brave when you denounce someone after they're dead.

[Sea]

It doesn't seem so brave when you denounce someone after they're dead.I'd rather difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that someone can admire a quack like Khrushchev for the same reason that I admire a loon like Bordiga. I'm going to go cry now.

[xxxxxx666666]

It was brave because Stalin had a personality cult and a shadow over the USSR that should have been gone after his death and it did, rightfully, call into question the actions committed during Stalin's time.

[Prometeo liberado]

Wait for it, it's coming. Ismail will ask you to read The Krushchevites. Oh man, what were you thinking?:grin:

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here

[Blake's Baby]

Thank you, Blake's Baby for the link, feel free to discuss your opinions there about Khrushchev there if you have strong opinions about him...

No worries. The ban on links for new members is there to stop people spamming, not to prevent people from directing to related topics. Happy to help.

I don't have any strong opinions on Kruschev, any more than I have strong opinions on Dwight Eisenhower, Konrad Adenauer or Alex Douglas-Home. About the only leaders from 1953-1964 I can get vociferous about are Mao and sometimes De Gaulle, but no-one on here is going to defend De Gaulle anyway. As to the others, Kruschev included... I don't care. A leader of a capitalist country being a capitalist president capitalistically in capitalism. Just like Stalin, or Kennedy, though possibly less mad than either of them.