Trotskyist views on Khrushchev

[Smash Monogamy]

What are your views on Khrushchev and how do you compare him to Stalin?

[CubanDream]

Nikkita was way better than Stalin, he allowed for a fair amount of liberalisation and stopped the purges and killings - ironically enough, this is ultimately what got him deposed several years later.

[Sea]

This:
Nikkita was way better than Stalin, he allowed for a fair amount of liberalisation and stopped the purges and killings - ironically enough, this is ultimately what got him deposed several years later....is mostly consistent with the views of the few trots I've talked to on that topic. As you can see, the problem is they make it seem like it's a good thing. The Khruschevites are not our friends. They are not even your friends, dearest Trot, for they are self-serving and stupid. Like prefabricated concrete, their balconies may be many, but their brain cells are as few as their shoe. Nikita Khrushchev was a corrupt childish man whose brain-power and stability noticeably declined with his age.

Perhaps there is one good thing about Nikita's eccentric, unpredictable behavior: If his leadership was received by his cohorts with the same degree of respect and seriousness, and the loyalty that follows naturally from this, as how Stalin was received by his comrades, Khrushchev could have easily been the most murderous and purge-mad leader the Soviets ever had.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"And Banda's got a problem: when Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 launched his attack on the crimes of Stalin, the question legitimately would be posed, “Hey Khrushchev, where were you?” But Khrushchev had a mechanism for controlling the whole process; it’s called a Stalinist bureaucracy, backed by state power. Banda does not have state power."

"Healyism Implodes", Spartacist no. 36-37

No Trotskyist group I am aware of has any affection for Khrushchev - at least not overtly. Even the most pro-Russian groups (like the one led by Posadas, who would write long articles about how the Soviet Union needs to bomb everyone) tended to treat Khrushchev as an embarrassment which, outside of the Soviet Union at least, he was.

It should also be kept in mind that Khrushchev presided over the Soviet intervention in Hungary, which every Trotskyist group except the arguably Trotskyist WWP condemns.

That said, we do not think the Soviet Union became capitalist when Khrushchev took over - and those of us who think the SU was a degenerated workers' state supported the Soviet Union against imperialists during the Cuban crisis etc.

[ComradeOm]

This is mostly consistent with the views of the few trots I've talked to on that topic. As you can see, the problem is they make it seem like it's a good thing. The Khruschevites are not our friends. They are not even your friends, dearest Trot, for they are self-serving and stupid. Like prefabricated concrete, their balconies may be many, but their brain cells are as few as their shoe. Nikita Khrushchev was a corrupt childish man whose brain-power and stability noticeably declined with his age.I'm not really sure how you construed 'Khrushchev was better than Stalin' to mean 'Khrushchev is our friend and ally'. I mean, I don't think anyone (Stalinists aside) would question the first statement and no one would accept the second.


Perhaps there is one good thing about Nikita's eccentric, unpredictable behavior: If his leadership was received by his cohorts with the same degree of respect and seriousness, and the loyalty that follows naturally from this, as how Stalin was received by his comrades, Khrushchev could have easily been the most murderous and purge-mad leader the Soviets ever had.Ugh, no. Khrushchev's leadership could never have degenerated into the tyranny of Stalin's. This was not because he was an oaf (a characterisation I'd dispute*) but because his 'reign' was always rooted in the collective rule of the Soviet elite, in a way that Stalin's hadn't been since the late 1920s. The transformation of the latter into an untouchable Generalissimo had required the mass destruction of 'his old cohorts' and the creation of a new ruling caste; two things that were entirely out of the question in the late 1950s. Certainly it wasn't due to some innate genius or ability to inspire devotion on the part of Stalin.

In contrast, the Khrushchev era was, from its very beginning, that of a confident and tightly-knit Soviet elite. There was no Stalin figure and very little room for one to emerge; not least because the Soviet leadership had absolutely no intention of returning to the shadow from which they'd just escaped. When someone did attempt to break ranks, well, things didn't end well for Beria. After Stalin the General Secretary never again headed a personal dictatorship.

Ditto with the "eccentric" comments. Whatever about his personal behaviour, Khrushchev's major policy initiatives were mostly collective: the MVD's economic empire was in terminal decline and undergoing dismantling by the mid-1950s, the shift to light manufacturing was a Malenkov initiative, the economic reforms were enthusiastically backed by the Party's powerful regional heads, etc, etc. Whatever about his public persona, there was nothing particularly frivolous about Khrushchev the politician.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

"And Banda's got a problem: when Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 launched his attack on the crimes of Stalin, the question legitimately would be posed, “Hey Khrushchev, where were you?” But Khrushchev had a mechanism for controlling the whole process; it’s called a Stalinist bureaucracy, backed by state power. Banda does not have state power."

"Healyism Implodes", Spartacist no. 36-37

No Trotskyist group I am aware of has any affection for Khrushchev - at least not overtly. Even the most pro-Russian groups (like the one led by Posadas, who would write long articles about how the Soviet Union needs to bomb everyone) tended to treat Khrushchev as an embarrassment which, outside of the Soviet Union at least, he was.

It should also be kept in mind that Khrushchev presided over the Soviet intervention in Hungary, which every Trotskyist group except the arguably Trotskyist WWP condemns.

That said, we do not think the Soviet Union became capitalist when Khrushchev took over - and those of us who think the SU was a degenerated workers' state supported the Soviet Union against imperialists during the Cuban crisis etc.

Ah man I hate to do this, but…

How was it not capitalist? Economic sectors competed with each other, and profit was put in command of the economy. Non-profitable workers were actually fired, and non-profitable factories were shut down. They used their suckup states for cheap raw materials and labor was a commodity.

Not trying to attack your tendency, and I'm NOT a Marxist-Leninist btw. I just want to hear your argument as to what exactly the SU was if not capitalist.

[Sea]

I'm not really sure how you construed 'Khrushchev was better than Stalin' to mean 'Khrushchev is our friend and ally'.

...

There was no Stalin figure and very little room for one to emerge; not least because the Soviet leadership had absolutely no intention of returning to the shadow from which they'd just escaped.If he helped you escape from the evil shadows of Stalinism why wouldn't he your ally? :rolleyes:

Khrushchev wasn't about escaping from some dark era. He the worst sort of opportunist - shilling to the United States and fighting against the "shadow" of socialistic goals all at once!

[ComradeOm]

If he helped you escape from the evil shadows of Stalinism why wouldn't he your ally? :rolleyes:That doesn't make any sense. Why would he be?

As far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no reason why the fact that Khrushchev was less of a murderous bastard than Stalin should automatically make him a socialist's "ally". Hence I'm asking you for the logic behind that mighty leap. Because, aside from an absurd binarism, I have no idea why anyone would assume this.


Khrushchev wasn't about escaping from some dark era. He the worst sort of opportunist - shilling to the United States and fighting against the "shadow" of socialistic goals all at once!I was actually referring to the Soviet elite who had escaped Stalin's personal dictatorship but that's by the by.

By almost any measure the Khrushchev era was better than the Stalin one. Particularly if you happened to live in the USSR at the time. Living standards rose significantly, mass repression was drastically scaled back, some balance was returned to the economy, etc, etc. As for ideological weakness or cooperation with the West, his hands are no dirtier than Stalin's. I don't recall Khrushchev sitting down to divide up Europe with fascists or Western imperialists.