Nikita Khrushchev good or bad

[spice756]

Okay reading up on Nikita Khrushchev why do people hate him? I thought he was anti-US and anti-capitalism.He was for Cuba and anti-imperialism.

I thought there was more freedom under him and worker council?

I know alot of people hate him and there is lot of web sites that are anti-Nikita Khrushchev .And even the posts here are anti-Nikita Khrushchev .

But what really did he do that was so bad in simple plain english?Some say he pave the wave for capitalism how so ?

I thought Mikhail Gorbachev was the supporter of capitalism and had set up state-capitalism ?

Please explain using simple plain english.

[BobKKKindle$]

I thought he was anti-US and anti-capitalism.

Many communists criticize Khrushchev because he favored a strategy of "peaceful co-existence", which means he was wiling to tolerate the existence of the capitalist bloc and predicted that all the capitalist countries would eventually undergo revolutions and become part of the socialist bloc without the intervention of the USSR. This was seen as a capitulation to the demands of the imperialist powers and was a major cause of the 1959 Sino-Soviet split, which caused the USSR to withdraw the technical advisers they had sent to the PRC, and the advisers were also ordered to destory their blueprints, which meant the PRC had to develop an industrial base independently without the help of any other country.


He was for Cuba and anti-imperialism.

Although Kruschechev did provide military support to Cuba, he also ordered the invasion of Hungary 1956 to crush the uprising against the bureaucratic regime.

[OI OI OI]

Krutchev was a heartless bureacucrat just like Stalin was.

He ordered the invasion of hungary killing tens of thousands of workers.

There was still no political freedom under his regime and he betreayed the international proletariat even more than Stalin did.

He was a worthless rabid .

We cannot have illusions on the bureacracy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

He ended the "socialist primitive accumulation" that spanned all of Stalin's rule. He also abandoned the concept of class struggle. In actual fact, while "revisionistically" breaking from the industrialization-and-purge era of 1929-1941, he ensured continuity with the immediate post-war era of 1946-1953.

[maverick]

Basic overview:




In his Secret Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences), Khrushchev denounced Stalin for his personality cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_cult) and his regime for "violation of Leninist norms of legality", marking the onset of the Khrushchev Thaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev_Thaw).
Dissolved the Cominform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform) organization and reconciled with Josip Broz Tito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito), which ended the Informbiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informbiro) period in the history of Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia).
Established the Warsaw Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact) in 1955 in response to the formation of NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO).
Ordered the 1956 Soviet military intervention in Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) (see Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956)).
Ceded Crimea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea) from the Russian SFSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_SFSR) to the Ukrainian SSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_SSR) in 1955.
Provided support for Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) against the West during the 1956 Suez Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis).
Promoted the doctrine of "Peaceful co-existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_co-existence)" in the foreign policy, accompanied by the slogan "To catch up and overtake the West" in internal policy.
Triggered the Sino-Soviet Split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Split) through talks with the U.S. and a refusal to support the Chinese nuclear program.
Initiated the Soviet space program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_programme_of_the_USSR) that launched Sputnik I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_I) and Yuri Gagarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin), getting a head start in the space race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_race). Participated in negotiations with U.S. President John F. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy) for a joint moon program, negotiations that ended when Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.
Canceled the 1960 Paris Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1960_Paris_Summit&action=edit&redlink=1) over the Gary Powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Powers) U-2 incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_Crisis_of_1960).
Met with U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower) at Camp David, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David,_Maryland) in September 1959. He was the first Soviet leader to visit the United States in a diplomatic capacity.
Initiated the deployment of nuclear missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) in Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba), which led to the Cuban missile crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis) of 1962.
Approved East Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany)'s construction of the Berlin Wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall) in 1961, after the West did not agree to his proposal to incorporate West Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Berlin) into a neutral, demilitarized "free city."
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikita_Khrushchev&action=edit&section=8)] Key economic actions


Second wave of the reclamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation) of virgin and abandoned lands (see Virgin Lands Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Lands_Campaign)).
Introduction of sovnarkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkhoz) (Councils of People's Economy), regional organizations, in an attempt to combat the centralization and departmentalism of the ministries
Reorganization of agriculture, with preference given to sovkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovkhoz) (state farms), including conversion of kolkhozes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz) into sovkhozes, introduction of maize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize) (earning him the sobriquet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriquet) kukuruznik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukuruznik), "the maize enthusiast").
Coping with housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House) crisis by quickly building millions of apartments according to simplified floor plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_plan), dubbed khrushchovkas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchovka).
Created a minimum wage in 1956.
Redenomination of the ruble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble) 10:1 in 1961.

It's grayish, but still obviously negative overall. I'd say he's a step up from the disaster called Stalin, but not a model leader that followed true to Marx/Lenin's principles. He simply was more of the same, and another chink in the bureacucratic state. That does not amuse mavvy.

[communard resolution]

There was still no political freedom under his regime

Since when is it that you're promoting political freedom, Oi Oi Oi? Wasn't it you in a recent Cuba thread who wanted to send all dissenters to the gas chambers or something? :)

[Sprinkles]

He also abandoned the concept of class struggle.


Isn't this a logical result when any Stalinist regime is faced with the contradiction of it's own official doctrine?

Either the regime has established socialism and with it the beginning of a classless society, in which case its repressive apparatus is becoming unjustified as time passes. Or its official doctrine can't lead to this since the nationalization of the means of production alone does not ensure the disappearance of classes. To quote Trotsky "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."

Both Maoists and anti-revisionist Stalinists denounce Kruschev because Kruschev was the first of the Soviet leaders to begin the trend of liberalization that ultimately peaked with Gorbachev. These so called "revisionists" acted upon the belief that since antagonistic classes were beginning to, or even already had, disappeared in the Soviet Union,* the dictatorship of the proletariat (supposedly implemented through the party) could be relaxed or was not needed any more at all.

Whether this was a cynical move on the part of the Soviet leadership to mask a move towards the restoration of capitalism or they actually believed this is debatable. Personally I'd say they were genuinely convinced by this themselves and acted in a way to try and resolve this contradiction but eventually failed. They failed because only the working class could resolve this contradiction and not the bureaucracy, especially since the party and by extent the bureaucracy's organizational form was the problem in itself. In my view it's this contradiction which led not only to the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 but ultimately to the abolition of the Soviet Union itself.

The animosity of Maoism to Krushchev and the post Stalin Soviet leadership, as well as the Maoist emphasis on continued class struggle inside the party during the dictatorship of the proletariat, is a direct reaction to the post Stalin leadership's "revisionist" attitude.

*If I remember correctly it wasn't until Brezhnev that it was officially stated that antagonistic classes had in fact been abolished.

Edit: Did not vote, option of "neither good nor bad" was missing.

[spice756]

He was criticized for his ruthless crackdown of the 1956 revolution in Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_revolution_in_Hungary), even though he and Zhukov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Zhukov) were pushing against intervention until Hungary's declaration of withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact).


This is ****er-revoution here.



He encouraged the East German authorities to set up the notorious Berlin Wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall) in August 1961, although this action halted East Germany's crippling "brain-drain".

I'm not sure if this was good or bad thing.


He had very poor diplomatic skills, giving him the reputation of being a rude, uncivilized peasant in the West and as an irresponsible clown in his own country

What did he do?



He took a dangerous gamble in 1962 over Cuba, which took the Superpowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpowers) to the brink of a Third World War


And this is bad? That shows he is anti-US.




Agriculture barely kept up with population growth, as bad harvests mixed with good ones, culminating in a disastrous harvest in 1963


Food shortage?



Khrushchev was admired for his efficiency and for maintaining an economy which, during the 1950s and 1960s, had growth rates higher than most Western countries



So now they say he does a good job running the economy .




He is renowned for his liberalisation policies


What liberalisation policies?



Khrushchev placed more emphasis on the production of consumer goods and housing instead of heavy industry, precipitating a rapid rise in living standards.

I got it.


His de-Stalinization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1953-1985)) had a huge impact on young Communists of the day. Khrushchev encouraged more liberal communist leaders to replace hard-line Stalinists throughout the Eastern bloc


In his Secret Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences), Khrushchev denounced Stalin for his personality cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_cult) and his regime for "violation of Leninist norms of legality", marking the onset of the Khrushchev Thaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev_Thaw).

He seems to be a mix bag.

[spice756]

Krutchev was a heartless bureacucrat just like Stalin was.


He ordered the invasion of hungary killing tens of thousands of workers.

There was still no political freedom under his regime and he betreayed the international proletariat even more than Stalin did.

He was a worthless rabid .

We cannot have illusions on the bureacracy.

If there was no political freedom why did he allow so many people out of prison.And saying there innocent people in prison.

Why did he say over and over there was too much abuse of power by Stalin and he put innocent people in prison.And going on and on about war crimes about Stalin .Why did he allow worker council and people to come and go into USSR.


I seem to get mix information about him.

[Prairie Fire]

Unfortunately, after endless discussion, many revlefters continue to view the world and historical figures as "Good" and "Bad". This is not a materialist world outlook, it is juvenile moralism.

I do not Think Nikita Kruschev was "Bad"; I do think that he was a revisionist, a traitor, a conspirer and a social-imperialist (note that all of these words I have used to describe Kruschev have a meaning that can be substantiated, instead of moral subjectivity, which this thread put forward .)

Kruschev was General Secretary of the CPSU at a time of it's turning away from socialism. He persynally oversaw capitalist restoration, he persynally and intentionally distorted Marxism-Leninism, and decieved parties and people fighting for the their liberation all over the world by negating class struggle and armed revolution ("peaceful coexistence"). Despite his "peaceful coexistence" thesis in regards to the capitalist powers, he was the first to sic the tanks onthe proletariat of neighbouring countries.


He was for Cuba and anti-imperialism.

He was "for Cuba" in the same sense that America had previously been "for Cuba", and Spain had previously been "for Cuba": He was "for Cuba" integrating into the Soviet socio-economic sphere of domination.

He was "for" Cuban sugar, he was "for" Cubas strategic position, and he was "for" the export of finance capital to Cuba, to turn Cuba into a neo-colony dependent on cash-crops and export.

Read an excellent pamphlet put out by the RCP, if you can ever get your hands on it. It's called Cuba:the Evaporation of a Myth.


I thought there was more freedom under him and worker council?

You mean more " freedom™ "? Kind of like the United States?
I can't be too harsh here; that is the view that is taught of Kruschev in the west. I learned of Kruschev in junior high as an "agrarian reformer". He was the only soviet leader praised in social studies.

Also, as most institutions of socialism were disbanded during this time, I'm going to say that the introduction of workers councils seems contradictory to the goals of the Kruschev clique.


But what really did he do that was so bad in simple plain english?Some say he pave the wave for capitalism how so ?

Once again, stop with the moralism.
He didn't just "pave the way" for capitalism; he started to re-introduce it (re-introduction of the profit motive, some private property, export of finance capital,etc,etc).


I thought Mikhail Gorbachev was the supporter of capitalism and had set up state-capitalism ?

Gorbachev simply abolished the last vestiges of social ownership. Kruschev began the process.

Oi Oi OI

Krutchev was a heartless bureacucrat just like Stalin was.

OMG! OMFG! Bureacracy! The most evil and feared word in the Trotskyist dictionary (although, necesary to the over-all rationalization of Trotskyism)!

Do more studying on the Stalin era, or shut the hell up. I would,as always suggest that you start with some Bill Bland (The cult of the individual is a good start), but there also good points in writers/leaders such as Grover Furr, Hardial Bains, Harpal Brar, Ludo Martens, etc.



There was still no political freedom under his regime and he betreayed the international proletariat even more than Stalin did.

Wow, that sentence was almost correct. You kind of lost steam at the end, with your gratuitous, un-substantiated Stalin jab.



He was a worthless rabid .

Not to get nit-picky (I don't disagree that Niki had no positive contributions), but I don't believe "Rabid" is a noun.


We cannot have illusions on the bureacracy.

As I said earlier, read up. Do some more studying. Refering to the soviet-leadership collectively as "the bureacracy", regardless of the era and political line, is a sure-fire sign of idealism and naiviety.

At least check out the bland text I mentioned, which is free on line. I believe it will at least (hopefully) help you discern between the Stalin era and Kruschev era.


Jacob Ritcher:

He also abandoned the concept of class struggle.

Word.

maverick:


I'd say he's a step up from the disaster called Stalin, but not a model leader that followed true to Marx/Lenin's principles.


Well, if you would say that, I would say you're an idiot and a naive scholar of bourgeois history.

Check out some of these titles, most available online for free:

Ludo Martens, Another View of Stalin
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Bill Bland, The cult of the individual
http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Hardial Bains, Causes and Lessons of the Second World War
http://www.panjab.org.uk/english/WW2lesons.htm


He simply was more of the same, and another chink in the bureacucratic state.

Next persyn that uses "bureacracy" as a blanket term for the soviet leadership circa 1922-1991 is getting a slap.

Contact HU comrade Andres Marcos (who has an account on revleft) about "bureacracy", as he will be better than I at tracking down Lenins thoughts on the subject (Stalin too).

Sprinkles:


Isn't this a logical result when any Stalinist regime is faced with the contradiction of it's own official doctrine?

Another persyn who can't differentiate between the Kruschev and Stalin eras of the USSR, despite the distinctly different foriegn policy, domestic policy, political line and economic organization.

Sprinkles, you should also read the sources I posted above.

Why does every thread become an open-mic podium for anti-stalin, historically-naive kids to soap-box?



Either the regime has established socialism and with it the beginning of a classless society, in which case its repressive apparatus is becoming unjustified as time passes.


Is there a name for this world you live in, where the USSR wasn't historically fighting on some front for their own survival between 1917-1945? The only elements of the soviet state that would qualify as "apapratus" that I can think of were the Party and the army. The party was necesary for devolping socialism and coordinating the workers, the army was necesary for preserving the existence of the USSR.

Your lofty idealism has no historical context.


Or its official doctrine can't lead to this since the nationalization of the means of production alone does not ensure the disappearance of classes.

Erm, are you suggesting that nationalization was the "Stalinist" program in it's entirety? If so, That's not remotely close to true, but I'd like to know if that was your intention.


Whether this was a cynical move on the part of the Soviet leadership to mask a move towards the restoration of capitalism or they actually believed this is debatable. Personally I'd say they were genuinely convinced by this themselves and acted in a way to try and resolve this contradiction but eventually failed

Well, if it is your persynal opinion that the soviet leadersip were naive and actually believed the theoretical bullshit that they were peddling, then you need to do more research, especially in the context of how the soviet economy changed from Stalin to Kruschev.

This liberalization was not simply a naive faux-pas on the part of oblivious soviet appartchiks. It was very deliberate, and even skimming historial data attests to this.


They failed because only the working class could resolve this contradiction and not the bureaucracy, especially since the party and by extent the bureaucracy's organizational form was the problem in itself. In my view it's this contradiction which led not only to the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 but ultimately to the abolition of the Soviet Union itself.

A few things:

1. (Slap)

2. I allready pointed out that the belief that the soviet leadership was naive about the outcome of their decisions doesn't hold water

3. I disagree about the causes of the Hungarian revolution. I know many Trotskysists view it as a glorious workers uprising against the "stalinists",
but given the amount of western intervention, and the part played by former fascists within it (with murder of Jews and communists during the Hungarian revolt), I think it is more likely to qualify as a counter-revolution.

That said, I am against the Soviet intervention in Hungary and Czechoslavakia.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Check out some of these titles, most available online for free:

Ludo Martens, Another View of Stalin
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Bill Bland, The cult of the individual
http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Hardial Bains, Causes and Lessons of the Second World War
http://www.panjab.org.uk/english/WW2lesons.htm


Why do you feel the need to constantly reference baldfaced propaganda?

All of the authors you listed are "anti-revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, which happens to be your persuasion, if I'm not mistaken. Could you please at least list one source that isn't written by a man who worships at the Anti-Revisionist altar?

Sheesh. It's like a Trot saying, "Stalin was a villain who betrayed the revolution! Read The Revolution Betrayed!" Or a liberal saying, "Stalin killed tens of millions! Read Robert Conquest!"

[Prairie Fire]

Why do you feel the need to constantly reference baldfaced propaganda?

All of the authors you listed are "anti-revisionist" Marxist-Leninists, which happens to be your persuasion, if I'm not mistaken. Could you please at least list one source that isn't written by a man who worships at the Anti-Revisionist altar?

Sheesh. It's like a Trot saying, "Stalin was a villain who betrayed the revolution! Read The Revolution Betrayed!" Or a liberal saying, "Stalin killed tens of millions! Read Robert Conquest!"

:rolleyes:. Any writer that would have any writing that might portray Stalin in a positive light would certainly not remain a capitalist.
Knowing the history, having done the research that they have done, how could any of the authors I quoted not be a Marxist-Leninist? Having full knowledge of generally neglected historical events, how could they remain in an ignorant state after obtaining this knowledge?

Your objection is bizzare; you think that, perhaps these persynalities were BORN
Anti-revisionists? You think perhaps there historians and political figures are not anti-revisionists specifically because of the evidence that they uncovered?

For the record, you think that I was always an anti-revisionist?

Also, there is nothing wrong with quoting sources from your own ideological tendency. If it is a source you disagree with ideologically, why would you recommend it? Feel free to quote the revolution betrayed as your source; I will criticize your source, and feel free to scrutinize and criticize mine.

Now, read my sources.

[Hiero]

Krutchev was a heartless bureacucrat just like Stalin was.

He ordered the invasion of hungary killing tens of thousands of workers.

There was still no political freedom under his regime and he betreayed the international proletariat even more than Stalin did.

He was a worthless rabid .

We cannot have illusions on the bureacracy.

Ha! All need is a little more heart.

[F9]

I voted he was bad,but this could also be a little misunderstanding.he certainly had shitty ideas,and he wasnt a Communist,but i can t really say if he was a good or bad person.
But nevertheless he was a bad "chief"(lol i have forgotten the proper word),and so i voted bad!

Fuserg9:star:

[maverick]

Well, if you would say that, I would say you're an idiot and a naive scholar of bourgeois history.

Check out some of these titles, most available online for free:

Ludo Martens, Another View of Stalin
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Bill Bland, The cult of the individual
http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Hardial Bains, Causes and Lessons of the Second World War
http://www.panjab.org.uk/english/WW2lesons.htm




I love the smell of anti-revisionist propoganda in the morning. :laugh:

Seriously, despite being somewhat of a noob, I though have skimmed through some pro-Stalin, pro-anti revisionist articles before. I wasn't overly impressed or convinced. Stalin may have got some things done, but I would never call him the pinaccle of the Revolution or exactly what Marx had in mind when he was at his desk writing down his ideas/insight. All he did at the end of the day was really give a bad name to Communism, and to be frank his beuracratic and authoriatan methods are not appealing to me (the non-orthodox anarcho-communist). Go worship Stalin upon the highest mountain, see if I care. Better yet keep having wet dreams about the Second Coming of the Hoaxist state. :lol:

Peace.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with getting info from sources that supports your view, but don't expect that everyone will automatically throw down their ideas and follow, as you see it, the true path of enlightment.

[Prairie Fire]

I love the smell of anti-revisionist propoganda in the morning.

Did you, or did you not read my sources in the entirety? The sources by Bland and Hardial are really short.

Not only do I have sources, but my sources have sources. Check everything out for inconsistencies, or shut the hell up.


I though have skimmed through some pro-Stalin, pro-anti revisionist articles before.

Such as....?
Instead of skimming, try reading.



Stalin may have got some things done, but I would never call him the pinaccle of the Revolution or exactly what Marx had in mind when he was at his desk writing down his ideas/insight


Who ever called him "pinnacle of the revolution" (other than you, ironically.)?
Also,here is a challenge that no one has ever accepted from me: Find me some inconsistencies between the theoretical stances of Karl Marx, and those of J.V. Stalin.

Stalin read a lot more Marx than you have (in addition to actually participating in a revolution); maybe it's you who isn't exactly what Marx had in mind.


All he did at the end of the day was really give a bad name to Communism,

I have tackled this BULLSHIT line at least five times allready on revleft.

Do you really believe that it was Stalin, that "defamed" communism? Are you really that dense?

Yes, because otherwise, communists would only be held in the highest regard in the capitalist history books. :rolleyes:

To begin with, Communism had a pristine image before Stalin.:
Anti-communist poster from USA, circa 1919
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/456964557/

Certainly, if it had been Trotsky, he would have been treated fairly:

http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/c/cf/WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg


Of course, Marx himslef was only upheld with the highest esteem before Stalin came along:

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/art/visual_arts/satire/marx/marx1.jpg


Are you really that naive, that you think that there would ever be any circumstances where communism was not defamed since it's inception? :rolleyes:

The Capitalists are threatened by communism, so which communist are they going to hate the most? Answer:The one that gives them the most trouble. Stalin was head of state of an economic and military super-power on the verge of eclipsing the US, aiding victorious revolutions all over the world.

You honestly believe that Stalin, or any other Marxist in his position, would get good press?


and to be frank his beuracratic and authoriatan methods are not appealing to me (the non-orthodox anarcho-communist).

That is the mentality behind why people turn to "isms" that have never yeildied results, isn't it? :lol: It isn't "appealing" to them.

You say you have read anti-revisionist sources before; obviously not, if you are still tackling bureacracy from a stand point of idealism, and especially if you think Stalin had anything to do with it.


Go worship Stalin upon the highest mountain, see if I care.

Thank you for summing up the essence of my position with a tired-cliche straw-man.:rolleyes:


Better yet keep having wet dreams about the Second Coming of the Hoaxist state

Thanks again for making my position, which is materialist and scientific, seem ludacris, idealist and juvenile with yet another Straw-man cliche.


Peace.

You make two strawmans depicting me as a juvenile cultist, then you end your post with "peace" :rolleyes:.


EDIT: I don't have a problem with getting info from sources that supports your view, but don't expect that everyone will automatically throw down their ideas and follow, as you see it, the true path of enlightment.

Well, if they actually read them, and perhaps take the initiative to acquire more knowledge, they might. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.

[Sprinkles]

Unfortunately, after endless discussion, many revlefters continue to view the world and historical figures as "Good" and "Bad". This is not a materialist world outlook, it is juvenile moralism.


I agree that it's moralism, but not necessarily juvenile.



I do not Think Nikita Kruschev was "Bad"; I do think that he was a revisionist, a traitor, a conspirer and a social-imperialist (note that all of these words I have used to describe Kruschev have a meaning that can be substantiated, instead of moral subjectivity, which this thread put forward .)

Kruschev was General Secretary of the CPSU at a time of it's turning away from socialism. He persynally oversaw capitalist restoration, he persynally and intentionally distorted Marxism-Leninism, and decieved parties and people fighting for the their liberation all over the world by negating class struggle and armed revolution ("peaceful coexistence"). Despite his "peaceful coexistence" thesis in regards to the capitalist powers, he was the first to sic the tanks onthe proletariat of neighbouring countries.


Wow, this sounds like a really materialist interpretation, just considering that this great man of history could do this all by himself. It's almost like he wasn't the representative of the ideas of a certain social class which happened to be connected with some kind of political party, who to use your own terms thought they were needed to "coordinate the workers."

I also have to quote the following part again, since I found this condemnation particularly interesting:



...he was the first to sic the tanks onthe proletariat of neighbouring countries.
Especially considering later on, you had this to say about the Hungarian Revolution:



...given the amount of western intervention, and the part played by former fascists within it (with murder of Jews and communists during the Hungarian revolt), I think it is more likely to qualify as a counter-revolution.
Is it some strange form of double-think perhaps? Anyway, moving on...



Another persyn who can't differentiate between the Kruschev and Stalin eras of the USSR, despite the distinctly different foriegn policy, domestic policy, political line and economic organization.
Nice reading comprehension, did you notice that I both mentioned Kruschev his term as general secretary having started the trend towards liberalization as well as the beginning of the Soviet leaderships notion that antagonistic classes in the USSR had disappeared? By the way the whole "peaceful co-existence" thing might not have been that bad considering that Mutually Assured Destruction stuff.



Why does every thread become an open-mic podium for anti-stalin, historically-naive kids to soap-box?
It's like madlibs for marxists.



Is there a name for this world you live in, where the USSR wasn't historically fighting on some front for their own survival between 1917-1945? The only elements of the soviet state that would qualify as "apapratus" that I can think of were the Party and the army. The party was necesary for devolping socialism and coordinating the workers, the army was necesary for preserving the existence of the USSR.
Hey, it wasn't my idea to try and build socialism in one country.



Your lofty idealism has no historical context.
Lol.



Erm, are you suggesting that nationalization was the "Stalinist" program in it's entirety? If so, That's not remotely close to true, but I'd like to know if that was your intention.
No, where did I suggest that? Should I have addressed every point where I think Stalinist ideology is flawed or could I have just addressed the point I thought was most crucial?



Well, if it is your persynal opinion that the soviet leadersip were naive and actually believed the theoretical bullshit that they were peddling, then you need to do more research, especially in the context of how the soviet economy changed from Stalin to Kruschev.
Perhaps you could tell me what the connection between their theoretical bullshit and the changes in the economy is, so I would know what it is that I'm supposed to be looking for? If it's about them secretly plotting to restore capitalist relations I'm not really that interested.

Since perhaps their economic changes might have had something to do with changing the economy back from total war production to something which might provide consumer goods as well. Perhaps you know that the USSR never really got the hang of providing enough of them to satisfy the needs of the working class either, plenty of tanks, nukes and qeues though.



This liberalization was not simply a naive faux-pas on the part of oblivious soviet appartchiks. It was very deliberate, and even skimming historial data attests to this.
I didn't say it was a mistake since it was a deliberate move, I would have thought that would be obvious especially since I specifically mentioned they acted on their convictions.



A few things:

1. (Slap)
Ouch.



2. I allready pointed out that the belief that the soviet leadership was naive about the outcome of their decisions doesn't hold water
Sure and anarchists, left-communists, Titoists, Trotskyists and everyone else, are all conscious counter-revolutionaries just masquerading as communists as well. Or perhaps even though we might disagree with someone else their convictions, they might genuinely think (albeit perhaps mistakenly,) that their political programme will be the correct way to move towards communism.



3. I disagree about the causes of the Hungarian revolution. I know many Trotskysists view it as a glorious workers uprising against the "stalinists", but given the amount of western intervention, and the part played by former fascists within it (with murder of Jews and communists during the Hungarian revolt), I think it is more likely to qualify as a counter-revolution.
Boy, that uppity working class sure doesn't know what's good for them do they? Good thing they have people like you to tell them they're counter-revolutionaries for wanting things like:

1 Free and democratic elections with the right of recall.
2 No official to receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3 No standing army, but an armed people.
4 No permanent bureaucracy, since every cook should be able to be Prime Minister.

Quite ironic considering who promised the working class they would have these things.



That said, I am against the Soviet intervention in Hungary and Czechoslavakia.
Congratulations.

[Prairie Fire]

Sprinkles:

Okay Trot; let's dance.


I agree that it's moralism, but not necessarily juvenile.

Moralism is Juvenile. A "Good" and "Evil", two-dimensional world outlook is for children.



Wow, this sounds like a really materialist interpretation, just considering that this great man of history could do this all by himself. It's almost like he wasn't the representative of the ideas of a certain social class which happened to be connected with some kind of political party, who to use your own terms thought they were needed to "coordinate the workers."


Nice try; Appreciate that you are trying to paint my world outlook as a "great man of history" outlook, but it isn't.

Here is one of my quotes from above (my emphasis added):

...I'm going to say that the introduction of workers councils seems contradictory to the goals of the Kruschev clique

I recognize that Kruschev represented class interests, and was a front man for a class. I also recognize that Kruschev was the general secretary of the CPSU, and as such, inked many orders himself (as head of state).

This is a materialist outlook.


Is it some strange form of double-think perhaps? Anyway, moving on...

No. Why do I have to support one or the other? I have to choose between Soviet social-imperialists and American agents and pogrom-mongering Hungarian fascists? I'm not really supportive of either side.

That isn't double think, it is simply an analysis of the situation.



did you notice that I both mentioned Kruschev his term as general secretary having started the trend towards liberalization as well as the beginning of the Soviet leaderships notion that antagonistic classes in the USSR had disappeared?


Yes, but in the quotation that you are now quoting, I replied to this comment:


Isn't this a logical result when any Stalinist regime is faced with the contradiction of it's own official doctrine?

So, you recognize that changes in the sphere of economy, organization, foreign policy, domestic policy and ideological line, and yet simultaneously still refer to the Kruschevite regime as "Stalinist"?

By lumping the Kruschev CPSU in as "stalinist", You are putting forward the line that the Kruschev era was the same as the Stalin era, and yet with another breath, you tell me that you recognize the contradictory stances taken in theory and economic organization.

You see where the confusion comes from? Perhaps if Trotskyists didn't have a Binary world outlook (Either Trotskyist or "Stalinist", nothing in between).



It's like madlibs for marxists.


It's like opportunism for petty-bourgeois children, who just got into "manifesto of the communist party" a few months ago, and now think that they are the new Lenin.


Hey, it wasn't my idea to try and build socialism in one country.

No, and thank god it wasn't your decision to make. Like Leon, you do not grasp Lenins thesis about Capitalism developing differently, and at an un-even pace among each different country. Also, you seem to completely misunderstand what socialism in one country entails.

Seriously, the peoples of the world fighting for liberation really dodged a bullet that you wern't callling the shots.



Lol.


Good rebuttle.



No, where did I suggest that? Should I have addressed every point where I think Stalinist ideology is flawed or could I have just addressed the point I thought was most crucial?


What was that you said to me about lack of "reading comprehension" earlier?

Here was your quote that I replied to:


Or its official doctrine can't lead to this since the nationalization of the means of production alone does not ensure the disappearance of classes.

So.... on the one hand, you say that nationalization of the means of production alone can't bring about a classless society (true), on the other hand, you state that you are aware that there are other points to the "stalinist" program towards socialism(I'm getting really sick of using that phrase "stalinst"; say "Marxist-Leninist", please,) .

:confused: So...you criticize the "official doctrine" because you claim that it focuses on nationalizing the means of production alone, but simultaneously you are completely aware that nationalizing the means of production is far from the only point of the Marxist-Leninist program?

This, plus the fact that you recognize that Kruschevs actions in power were not similar to Stalins, yet you classify him a "stalinist" anyways...

Come to think of it, what was that you said earlier about me being the one to "double think" ?


I didn't say it was a mistake since it was a deliberate move, I would have thought that would be obvious especially since I specifically mentioned they acted on their convictions.

A deliberate move, yes, but you did seem to think that it came froma starting point of genuine intentions to resolve a contradiction.
I uphold that the Kruschev clique had no intentions of preserving socialism, and this can be seen in all of the action sand stances of the CPSU during Kruschevs reign as general secretary.


Sure and anarchists, left-communists, Titoists, Trotskyists and everyone else, are all conscious counter-revolutionaries just masquerading as communists as well. Or perhaps even though we might disagree with someone else their convictions, they might genuinely think (albeit perhaps mistakenly,) that their political programme will be the correct way to move towards communism


You are comparing two things that are not related (in motivations, at least).

Titoists,Trots,anarchists and left communists, for all of their erroneous lines, are genuine in their political affilaitions, in the context of this present society.

The Kruschevites, on the other hand, were members of the party that held state power; their persynal political centers and class motivations are any-ones guess, but their actions were concretely anti-worker and they certainly did re-implement many of the hallmarks of capitalism.

I find it hard to believe that the reintroduction of some private property in the form of land ownership , "co-existence" with the imperialist capitalist powers, selling ou tmany national-liberation struggles, the export of finance capital, etc, was done to "move towards communism".


Perhaps you could tell me what the connection between their theoretical bullshit and the changes in the economy is, so I would know what it is that I'm supposed to be looking for? If it's about them secretly plotting to restore capitalist relations I'm not really that interested.

You do not aknowledge that this is a possibility (just not as cartoonish and conspiracy theory-ish, like you made it sound)? Capitalist reaction assumes many forms, sometimes playing the part in red, if the situation calls for it.


Since perhaps their economic changes might have had something to do with changing the economy back from total war production to something which might provide consumer goods as well.

And this necesitated the re-introduction of the profit motive, how?
This was relevent to the export of finance capital how?


Perhaps you know that the USSR never really got the hang of providing enough of them to satisfy the needs of the working class either, plenty of tanks, nukes and qeues though.

In the context of the second world war, that is a delightfully ridiculous thing to say.

In the context of the post-war arms build up, take that up with the contemporary supporters of Nikita Kruschev, not me.


Good thing they have people like you to tell them they're counter-revolutionaries for wanting things like:

1 Free and democratic elections with the right of recall.
2 No official to receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3 No standing army, but an armed people.
4 No permanent bureaucracy, since every cook should be able to be Prime Minister.

Quite ironic considering who promised the working class they would have these things.


It is interesting to note that these demands, as well as this struggle errupted AFTER the death of Stalin, AFTER all of the Marxist-Leninists had been purged from the Hungarian party (they were the first to go).

Very interesting that this uprising happened in the context of the liberalization of the CPSU.

Now, I by and large don't support the oppurtunists who comandeered this struggle, but I am firmly against the soviet intervention as a matter of prinicple. Neither is the correct answer.

[communard resolution]

Also, you seem to completely misunderstand what socialism in one country entails.

Sorry to intrude in your duel with Sprinkle, but I for one would be curious to know what socialism in one country entails and how it relates to the notion of international socialism. If you've already explained your views on this somewhere else, I'd be grateful if you could post a link. Thanks!

[Sendo]

Prairie, some people don't agree with Stalin and Stalinists' rationalizations, get over it. Some people simply don't like authoritarianism. Stalin had deep flaws. It's one thing to defend him against bourgeois exaggerations, and it's another to put him on a pedestal as "no different" from Marx, theoretically (I'm not sure what that qualifier does...)

And stop that kiddy bullshit with "persyn". For goodness sake's, spell it the way people will understand. I've heard of people pushing for bringing back an English alphabet that's phonetic, but this doesn't make sense. The "o" represents a schwa sound here, not an "ih" or an "uy" sound. So I'll assume you're one of those misguided fools who thinks s/he's being feminist by misspelling words to avoid embedded strings of letters that look like male words.

Person....from LATIN "pers" and NOT from the Saxon "son".
MANual, WOMan, PERSon, congressMAN, fireMAN OMFG!!!!!11!!!
Get over it. "Man" means "hand" in Latin, and "man" means "human" in Saxon when used as a suffix. Oh wait, "humyn", because it's not like mo/me/ma is an Indo-European root; it's a chauvinist conspiracy!

[Prairie Fire]

Sendo, shut the fuck up.

You added nothing to this thread. In your 3 paragraphs, you have;

1. Shown cliched anti-stalin sentiments.

2. "Countered" my argument by stating that basically I should give up in the face of the impregnable wall of willful ignorance on the behalf of others.

3. Had a go at me, in a pseudo-intellectual way, for my spelling variant, which is really none of your fucking buisness.

In the future, rather than disrupting a thread (you made no attempt to even address the purpose of the thread,just addressed me persynally,) send me a PM.

[Sendo]

It is relevant to say that authoritarianism is something "myny persyns" (many persons) will never sit well with. Most of the pro-Stalin work seems to revolve around he "wasn't so bad" or he "did what was necessary". These are subjective viewpoints. Most people here agree the massacres are inflated Western numbers. But it doesn't change the fact that some people don't like petty political purges out of paranoia. Or that others think Stalin should have shared power or been more competent at giving people a good quality of life. Or maybe that he should have supported more revolutions.

It is possible that people are not ignorant, but have different opinions. Coding your insults with the word "ignorant" does not mask the content of what you are saying, which is basically, "Everyone who doesn't like Stalin is stupid or kiddie".

Don't talk to me about going off topic. You turned this whole thread into defending Stalin. The topic was on Kruschev.

Kruschev was a bureaucrat. While less cruel than Stalin he was even more anti-revolution than Stalin was. I have a negative impression of him. Not any more active hatred than I'd have for most historical rulers, though.

If you want to tie Stalin into it, you could probably fault him for being so authoritarian. This made the system unstable in his demise and led to a reversal of socialist policies and the eventual return of capital as the dominant force. If the people could have a revolution or two in 1917 why not in the 1950s? Obviously, Stalin must have done something to weaken the power of the common people. I likewise criticize Mao for letting China become too Mao-dependent so Deng could rise and reverse all the good. The strong state that Mao built also created a buffer against further rebellion...sadly resulting partly in the brutal crushing of the 1989 demos.

I brought up the respelling argument because I think it is laughable to talk/write with someone who thinks this is a reasynable (reasonable) way to make a point. When Chicano nationalists say "Aztlan" there's a reasyn (reason) behind it. When you say "persyn" you are trying to end a 100% make-believe chauvinism. You look stupid.

[Prairie Fire]

Sendo,

I see you ignored my request to PM me, and not derail the thread further.

I may or may not respond by PM, depending on my mood and available time

[Sendo]

I had to go lunch. But I wanted to tie my comments into the topic. I didn't have the time at first, because of lunch. I was saying that Kruschev is nothing to write home about. His policies seem to mirror Deng in some other strange ways.

He played into the demonization of Stalin-era Russia and then taking a mostly positive stance towards it. The point I think, is to make outsiders say, "Wow, if he could be positive in any way about someone who was so evil, he must be a dedicated commie bastard! Also, whatever he says must be true. Because he's a Soviet Premier, admitting any fault on the behalf of the Soviet Union MUST be true."

I liked Gorbachev for his opening up off the SU, and if less restrictions on politics meant a chance for capitalist takeover, so be it. The Soviet experiment had long since failed and the time was for democratic socialist groups to make the transition. Sadly, that didn't happen. I blame most of the post 1989 problems on Yeltsin. So Yeltsin's really the worst 20th century Soviet/Russian leader in my book. Kruschev is in a weird limbo, though, and the capitalist comeback was so far down the line, that it's hard to blame him directly for it.

Good, bad, it's all relative. If it comes down to a debate of who's worse: Stalin or Kruschev? It'll be not only subjective (what tradeoffs people feel were good) but also depend from person to person (prisoners who get released). So even if you interviewed Russia old people, you'll get different shades of nostalgia (as is the case when people discuss Stalin).

It's in the past now. Staging popularity contests brings little. We could narrow this down to what did Stalin do and what are the effects and how should we as a leftist community feel--but that's far different from: Nikita Good or bad?

[Sprinkles]

Okay Trot; let's dance.


Unfortunately I'm neither a Trot or a very good dancer.



Moralism is Juvenile. A "Good" and "Evil", two-dimensional world outlook is for children.
It was a joke referring to your apparent obsession with age, since old people can be moralistic in their outlook as well.



...I'm going to say that the introduction of workers councils seems contradictory to the goals of the Kruschev clique
I recognize that Kruschev represented class interests, and was a front man for a class. I also recognize that Kruschev was the general secretary of the CPSU, and as such, inked many orders himself (as head of state).

This is a materialist outlook.
Like every political figurehead, Stalin, Krushchev, Gorbachov and all of the other political leaders became the instruments of a social movement of which the exact contents eventually escaped them.

They all climbed their way to the top through the political apparatus to gain the right to mediate between the proletariat and capital, and they were all eventually discarded once they had outlived their usefulness. Stalin's usefulness had simply ended with the end of the period of primitive accumulation and Krushchev represented the economic changes that were to follow it.

Since the MoP was not privately owned but collectively managed, the bureaucracy was not explicitly capitalist in class origin even though they did constitute a distinct seperate social class which persued it's own interests.

But considering they collectively owned the MoP, the assertion that their intention was to consciously restore free market capitalism with private ownership of the MoP while falsely claiming they were communist is idealist since it forces an idea on them, which as an entire social class would be of little use to them and only beneficial to a very select few. This doesn't deny that as a social class they acted in their own interest which at times contradicts their stated purpose, which is what I referred to as it's unsolvable contradiction.

And like every political regime which as a minority rules over a larger majority the bureaucracy needed a justification for it's existence, in this case it was supposedly needed for developing socialism and to lay the groundwork for communism. To claim that they did not believe this is to assert that they realized their own authority was illegitimate, which is for example, just as unlikely as most of the bourgeoisie realizing their authority is illegitimate.



Why do I have to support one or the other? I have to choose between Soviet social-imperialists and American agents and pogrom-mongering Hungarian fascists? I'm not really supportive of either side.

That isn't double think, it is simply an analysis of the situation.
So it wasn't social-imperialism when Lenin interfered in the Ukraine to crush the supposedly pogrom-mongering Mahknovist fascists?

If it was alright for Lenin to intervene in the political backyard of Russia, it's a double standard to deny this to Krushchev.

That's double think.



By lumping the Kruschev CPSU in as "stalinist", You are putting forward the line that the Kruschev era was the same as the Stalin era, and yet with another breath, you tell me that you recognize the contradictory stances taken in theory and economic organization.
Stalinism is a common usage term for both the period and the politics, you might prefer Marxist-Leninism for your own political position and revisionism for the post-Stalin Soviet leadership but you're a minority in this.



You see where the confusion comes from? Perhaps if Trotskyists didn't have a Binary world outlook (Either Trotskyist or "Stalinist", nothing in between).
Ineffective ad hominem since I'm not a Trotskyist.



It's like opportunism for petty-bourgeois children, who just got into "manifesto of the communist party" a few months ago, and now think that they are the new Lenin.
You know madlibs are something that is fun for children as well as the rest of the family. My remark referred to your belief that people who aren't supportive of Stalinism must be children.

Even though what's left of the Stalinist movement currently resides in the geriatric ward doesn't mean that this apparent correlation between old age and an increased support of Stalinism is true.

But I do agree that ad hominems can be a lot of fun, unfortunately since I actually have to work under a boss for a living I'm not petit-bourgeois and have not been considered a minor by law for over a decade.



No, and thank god it wasn't your decision to make. Like Leon, you do not grasp Lenins thesis about Capitalism developing differently, and at an un-even pace among each different country.
The difference is that unlike Leon, I neither care or feel the need to validate any of Lenin's excuses.



Also, you seem to completely misunderstand what socialism in one country entails.
And you think you know this how? To put my reply in to context with the previous question of:



Is there a name for this world you live in, where the USSR wasn't historically fighting on some front for their own survival between 1917-1945? The only elements of the soviet state that would qualify as "apapratus" that I can think of were the Party and the army. The party was necesary for devolping socialism and coordinating the workers, the army was necesary for preserving the existence of the USSR.
It was Stalinist foreign policy which helped the demise of the revolutionary wave in Europe, they dug their own grave and shouldn't complain about the situation they helped create themselves. Hence my sarcastic remark that it wasn't my idea of building socialism in one country. I'm fully aware that the concept of building of socialism in one country was adopted after this and specifically as a direct result of this defeat.

The apparatus refers to everything from the Pioneers, to the nationalized labour unions or cultural institutions like Proletkult through which the Stalinist bureaucracy extended it's ideological reach into all the corners of everyday life.



Seriously, the peoples of the world fighting for liberation really dodged a bullet that you wern't callling the shots.
If people like you were calling the shots most of them would have a caught a bullet, which not surprisingly, a lot of them actually did. Nor do I aspire to call any shots since I belief in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and not in the Dictatorship of the Professional Party.



Good rebuttle.
Why would I need to seriously respond to a petty ad hominem attack?



So.... on the one hand, you say that nationalization of the means of production alone can't bring about a classless society (true), on the other hand, you state that you are aware that there are other points to the "stalinist" program towards socialism(I'm getting really sick of using that phrase "stalinst"; say "Marxist-Leninist", please,) .

So...you criticize the "official doctrine" because you claim that it focuses on nationalizing the means of production alone, but simultaneously you are completely aware that nationalizing the means of production is far from the only point of the Marxist-Leninist program?
I didn't claim the official doctrine was focused solely on the nationalization of the MoP, I stated that nationalization of the MoP alone does not ensure the disappearance of classes and more importantly that the notion that socialization of the MoP needs the active participation of an emancipated working class is contradictory and anathema to the bureaucratic substitutionist practices of Stalinism.

And unless I'm really seriously mistaken and the nationalization of the MoP isn't a part of Stalinist ideology at all, I don't see what the problem is.



This, plus the fact that you recognize that Kruschevs actions in power were not similar to Stalins, yet you classify him a "stalinist" anyways...
Again, common usage of the term.



A deliberate move, yes, but you did seem to think that it came froma starting point of genuine intentions to resolve a contradiction.
I uphold that the Kruschev clique had no intentions of preserving socialism, and this can be seen in all of the action sand stances of the CPSU during Kruschevs reign as general secretary.
Despite what they might have believed, there was no actual socialism to preserve.



Titoists,Trots,anarchists and left communists, for all of their erroneous lines, are genuine in their political affilaitions, in the context of this present society.
Phew, guess I dodged a bullet there. Could I perhaps request official status as a fellow traveler?



The Kruschevites, on the other hand, were members of the party that held state power; their persynal political centers and class motivations are any-ones guess, but their actions were concretely anti-worker and they certainly did re-implement many of the hallmarks of capitalism.
They re-instated wage labour? When was this ever abolished?



I find it hard to believe that the reintroduction of some private property in the form of land ownership , "co-existence" with the imperialist capitalist powers, selling ou tmany national-liberation struggles, the export of finance capital, etc, was done to "move towards communism".
Then neither was the NEP, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk or the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact done to "move towards communism".



You do not aknowledge that this is a possibility (just not as cartoonish and conspiracy theory-ish, like you made it sound)? Capitalist reaction assumes many forms, sometimes playing the part in red, if the situation calls for it.
The "restoration" of capitalism in the Soviet Union wasn't a result of a hidden agenda with a deliberate attempt to do this, but by the inability of Stalinist doctrine to resolve it's own contradictions which led to it's desintegration. The party-bureaucrats that ran of with the spoils were merely lucky enough to be in a priviliged position to do so.

It's a puritanical attitude to see the "revisionists" as "traitors" because they weren't able to deny the material conditions that led to their own undoing, the anti-revisionists had their second chance in China and they failed again, not because they didn't try hard enough, but because of the inherent contradiction of it's own official doctrine. You can't emancipate the working class by subjugating them through substitution first and you can't create a stateless society by expanding the role of the state into all aspects of everyday live.

Furthermore it's just as nonsensical for "anti-revisionists" to deny "revisionism" (as embodied by the later Soviet leadership) as the direct and valid successor of Stalinism (or Marxist-Leninism as you label it yourself) as it is nonsensical for the Trotskyist to deny Stalinism (or again Marxist-Leninism as you label it) as a valid successor to Leninism.



Since perhaps their economic changes might have had something to do with changing the economy back from total war production to something which might provide consumer goods as well.
And this necesitated the re-introduction of the profit motive, how?
This was relevent to the export of finance capital how?
Since it's all a part of trying to make a failing economy provide enough consumer goods so the people don't revolt and you know, eventually think it's a actually a better idea to return to full blown capitalism in 1991?



In the context of the second world war, that is a delightfully ridiculous thing to say.

In the context of the post-war arms build up, take that up with the contemporary supporters of Nikita Kruschev, not me.
Why? Is it better for proletarians to die en-masse under the flag of nationalism then?

What was that thing about Revolutionary Defeatism again? You know, the argument that the proletariat could not win or gain anything in a war. That the real enemy are (social-)imperialist leaders who sent the working class to their deaths and that they subsequently would gain more from the defeat of their own nations if the war could be turned into a civil war followed by international revolution?

Surely it was better to adopt the Social Patriotism with which the degenerated second international lead the proletariat to the slaughterhouse of the Great War...



It is interesting to note that these demands, as well as this struggle errupted AFTER the death of Stalin, AFTER all of the Marxist-Leninists had been purged from the Hungarian party (they were the first to go).

Very interesting that this uprising happened in the context of the liberalization of the CPSU.
When people are told they have can have more freedom to say what they want, they have a tendency to try to do so. So, neither very surprising or interesting unless you believe in conspiracies.



Now, I by and large don't support the oppurtunists who comandeered this struggle, but I am firmly against the soviet intervention as a matter of prinicple. Neither is the correct answer.
Okay.

[black magick hustla]

*shrugs* I think Stalin spearheaded a counterrevolution. Although the whole "bureacracy" argument has some merit, I think we can pinpoint certain specific elements that don tsound as broad as the whole bureacracy thing. First, the liquidation of the old bolshevik guard and the monotholization of the Party and the comintern as a whole. Second, the Popular Frontism that translated to workers dying for a section of the bourgeosie, all in the name of anti-fascism and democracy.

It is also important to understand that the counterrevolution was of an international flavor. The internationalist and proletarian elements of all parties aligned to moscow were purged.

Now, it wasnt "stalin's fault". The counterrevolution was already broiling under lenin, when the world revolution failed. The monotholization of the party and its integration to capital was already happening in 1919.

[Lenin's Law]

Okay reading up on Nikita Khrushchev why do people hate him? I thought he was anti-US and anti-capitalism.He was for Cuba and anti-imperialism.


With all due respect, asking if Khrushev is "good" or "bad" is a bit simplistic and reeks of idealism. He was a represenative of the Soviet bureacracy; thus, whether he was personally "good" or "bad" is entirely irrelevant. If Khrushchev did not exist some other representative of the bureacracy would easily have taken his place.

If you are a revolutionary socialist there is no other position than to be opposed to what he stood for: in foreign policy, he advocated not proleterian internationalism but narrow 'Great Russian' chauvinism, domestically he served the interests of a privileged and parasitic bureacracy that was already detaching themselves from the working class and would pave the road for the total destruction of the nationalized economy and the full restoration of capitalism...which did unfortunately occur.

[Sprinkles]

Sorry to intrude in your duel with Sprinkle, but I for one would be curious to know what socialism in one country entails and how it relates to the notion of international socialism. If you've already explained your views on this somewhere else, I'd be grateful if you could post a link. Thanks!

It's a thesis by Bhukarin which was adopted after the defeat of communist revolutions in Europe and marks a shift by the CPSU from trying to ferment world revolution to the preservation of the Soviet state. It's essentially an abandonment of Internationalist principles. It's often counterposed with Trotsky's notion that the ultimate survival of the Russian Revolution was dependant on a successful revolution in one of the more advanced Western countries like Germany.



*shrugs* I think Stalin spearheaded a counterrevolution. Although the whole "bureacracy" argument has some merit, I think we can pinpoint certain specific elements that don tsound as broad as the whole bureacracy thing.


Perhaps it's more precise to state it as Stalin basing his support on various factions from the bureaucracy, who preferred the return to "normalcy" instead of striving for world revolution. Which translates into the Politbureau, Comintern, etc taking positions that led to the actions which ultimately constituted the counterrevolution itself.



Now, it wasnt "stalin's fault". The counterrevolution was already broiling under lenin, when the world revolution failed. The monotholization of the party and its integration to capital was already happening in 1919.
I agree to an extent, but the failure of the 3rd International isn't necessarily the fault of the failure of the 2nd.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here.

[DiaMat86]

Kruschev was a lying sack of shit who ran as fast as he could from the concept of the workers state. Especially with his phony "Secret Speech". He was later deposed for developing his own cult of personality. He counts among his dismal accomplishments the abandonment of Che (a supporter of stalin) and the Sino-soviet split.

What a guy!

[4 Leaf Clover]

a simple minded foe

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I don't like Kruschev because of his destalinization, which meant destabilizing the USSR. Because of killing the ones who had worked together with Stalin, for his actions against Zhukov, the fact he nearly caused a nuclear war (Cubacrisis),...

[ROM]

Nikita Krushchev was doing what was necessary for his time.
These times are gone and the Soviet Union's needs now differ.
ROM

[Chapter 24]

Nikita Krushchev was doing what was necessary for his time.
These times are gone and the Soviet Union's needs now differ.
ROM

I don't get how dencouncing Stalin and trying to maintain a "peaceful co-existance" with capitalism, as well as sending tanks in Hungary to stop a supposed counterrevolution, was "doing what was necessary" for the USSR.

[Sprinkles]

...trying to maintain a "peaceful co-existance" with capitalism...

I don't see why Stalinists get so worked up about this considering what Stalin himself said on the subject:




Howard : Do you view as compatible the coincidental development of American democracy and the Soviet system?

Stalin: American democracy and the Soviet system may peacefully exist side by side and compete with each other. But one cannot evolve into the other.

Stalin: The Soviet system will not evolve into American democracy, or vice versa. We can peacefully exist side by side if we do not find fault with each other over every trifling matter.




Stalin : If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.

Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'll keep that "peaceful coexistence" remark by pre-war "Comrade" Stalin in mind. :thumbdown:

[Revy]

I would recommend Tony Cliff's Russia from Stalin to Khrushchev (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1956/xx/stalintok.htm). :thumbup1:

[Prairie Fire]

Sprinkles:

You (deliberately) "forgot" the second part of Stalins quote:



...Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1936/03/01.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm)

[Sprinkles]

You (deliberately) "forgot" the second part of Stalins quote:

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1936/03/01.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm)

Not really, I just didn't think it was very interesting. If it was an attempt at intellectual dishonesty I would not have added the link to the source, so that everyone who wanted to, could read where I had quoted from.

To put the interview into context for anyone interested; Stalin's words here reflect his attempts at reconciliation with the Western nations. In order to do this Stalin assures the bourgeoisie that he will not help the communists abroad who would seek to overthrow them and that the bourgeoisie subsequently has nothing to fear from him.

The practical results of this can be seen in the very year the interview was given. 1936, the start of the Spanish Civil War where the Stalinists actively suppressed any revolutionary actions and persecuted every revolutionary movement that would threaten the rule of the Spanish bourgeoisie as represented by the Republican state. In order to appease the bourgeoisie in the West, the Stalinists assured them they would respect the democracies' their farcical "Non-Intervention Pact". Which actively deprived the Spanish Republic of the means to defend itself, while the fascist rebels were armed and aided by both Nazi-Germany and fascist Italy. The actions of the Stalinists here led to the eventual victory of the fascists in Spain, as they had done so before in Germany.

The entire period of 1935 - 1939 is characterized by the Comintern under it's Stalinist hegemony actively abandoning the pursuit of communist revolution. Which ultimately ended with the Comintern being disbanded completely in 1943, as an act of good faith to strengthen wartime relations with the Allies.

To make this relevant to the thread; Stalin's attempted rapprochement to the West in the interview does not display any difference with Kruschchev's notion of Peaceful coexistence. They both had no interest whatsoever in international communist revolution and even sacrificed the communist movement when needed, in order lick the boot of the bourgeoisie to try and safeguard their own interests.

It does however signify a clear and definite break with the traditional foreign policy of the October Revolution under Lenin, who felt no need to court the bourgeoisie of the Entente. Which is exactly why under Lenin's leadership the Comintern established communist parties around the world; to pursue the international communist world revolution. It is noteworthy that the exact opposite is the reason why the Comintern was disbanded under the reactionary Stalinist regime.

[Counterreactionary]

I don't like the man, but I criticize him from a whole another point of view than the Stalin-supporters tend to do.

The concept of communism has never BEEN to attain international revolution by means of military domination and imperialism in the first place, so his ideas about "peaceful co-existence" were thereby based on a revision upon revisionism. Both military dominance (such as what Stalin carried out in East Europe) and abandonment of the international proletarian movement are the anti-theses of international solidarity.
I furthermore consider his "reform communist" ideas about the command economy superseeding the capitalist system gradually and peacefully a complete worthless pile of crap.

All the state capitalist bureaucrats that seated after Lenin all got him wrong. That's why it's extremely important for a workers' party not to be with a majority of officials and lack of ordinary workers, or else the party will only end up furthering meaningless bureaucratic interests for a narrow-eyed elite or family line.

And no, there was absolutely no workers councils under his rule. These were already abolished under Stalin and the bureaucratically deformed mode of planned economy was maintained throughout the rest of Soviet Union's existence.

In accordance to the invasion of Hungary, I reckon this rather happened despite his actions, not precisely by his command?

[Counterreactionary]

You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated

Wtf, Stalin said that?!?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stalin was too busy with "socialist primitive accumulation" - even moreso after the Great Patriotic War. By the time he died, his successors did away with any remaining pretenses towards class struggle. Nevertheless, the "national-democratic revolution" developed later on for foreign policy was an advancement relative to Mao's foreign policy - and perhaps even "New Democracy" itself.

[PoWR]

Black and white questions such as these rarely advance understanding on the issue at hand. You can't simply put up a historical figure and ask "thumbs up or thumbs down."

[SocialDemocracy19]

He was good in the aspect that he awoke the realization that Stalins rule was bureaucratic and not for the people, and how he helped cuba's revolutions with military support, but he failed when he answered to U.N. requests to remove the missles from cuba making kennedy's regime seem innocent while once again the third world was stripped of its right to resist.


"The workers have nothing to lose but their chains, working men of all countries unite."- Karl Marx

[Comrade Corwin]

Bureaucracy, bureaucrat, bureaucratic...
I believe that I've heard this word, in its many variations, used atleast 25-30 times as an insult of some kind. Can someone please tell me what your personal definition is? I know the dictionary definition and I have a great deal of experience with bureaucracy and therefore have my own opinion.

[SocialDemocracy19]

A bureaucracy is any group such as a government organized into a group of people who will rule (the borgousie) over those below them (the working class)

[Black Sheep]

"Introduction of sovnarkhozes (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovnarkhoz) (Councils of People's Economy), regional organizations, in an attempt to combat the centralization and departmentalism of the ministries"
More specific info on that please? (my browser cannot load anything but RL these days, srsly.:blink:)

I have a negative impression.The 'peaceful coexistence' cpmpletely destroys all the positive steps he could have made.

[samsara15]

I viewed Krushchev as an improvement over Stalin. However, it is hard to tell what exactly he represented. If he had not been closely associated with the evils and excesses of the Stalin era, they would have rubbed him out, since they killed dissenters. Smart dissenters remained silent if they wanted to remain alive and have any influence over events in that era. I've always been willing to give Kruschev the benefit of the doubt. He had the prudence to keep us out of WW III, while not bowing to American Imperialism.

[Cumannach]

Yeah the Cuban missile crisis, that was really prudent of him.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I viewed Krushchev as an improvement over Stalin. However, it is hard to tell what exactly he represented. If he had not been closely associated with the evils and excesses of the Stalin era, they would have rubbed him out, since they killed dissenters. Smart dissenters remained silent if they wanted to remain alive and have any influence over events in that era. I've always been willing to give Kruschev the benefit of the doubt. He had the prudence to keep us out of WW III, while not bowing to American Imperialism.
Kruschev waw the one that nearly got us into the Thrid World War in the first place.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Just so anyone who views poll answers doesn't get confused: My mouse was being stubborn and I voted "he was good". Of course, as an Anti-Revisionist, I say he was a con-artist who ushered in the reformist attitude that ultimately ruined the USSR.

[DancingLarry]

He was a pioneer* in the ongoing Revolutionary Shoe Movement.

*Not a young pioneer, though.

[Comrade Corwin]

I believe that Khrushchev did what was best for Russia to the best of his ability. Russia was not ready for communism or socialism yet. Just like Karl Marx had warned against, they attempted to create socialism before they had entered capitalism which is a necessary economic step. Even Lenin figured this out before he unfortunately passed before his time. Khrushchev was a revisionist, which is what Russia needed and he was ousted for attempted to remove the comfortable upper-class lifestyle that the corrupt Stalinist government had become used to.
He may have failed, but I believe he had the best intentions. Because the government continued their totalitarian rule, the people got fed up with the Soviet government and allowed an unstable Yeltsin to take power. Now Russia is worse off than ever...

[Honggweilo]

He was a pioneer* in the ongoing Revolutionary Shoe Movement.

*Not a young pioneer, though.
Muntazer al-Zaidi is a Krusthevite :rolleyes:?

[Soviet]

Khrushchev was the mouthpiece the bureaucracy wich wished to delete any control of it.Hence it appears his hate toward Stalin.He started the processe of degradation of party apparate.

[ThiagoCL]

People aren't just good or bad, people have their good side and their bad side. Governments made by people can't be good or bad either they have good sides and bad sides.
By the way good and bad are relative to referentials: what is good for socialism uses to be bad for capitalism.
Nikita Khrushchev isn't beloved because he told the world a few exagerated information about Stalin. Tought much of what he said was true and Stalin's government wasn't perfect,
(after all inperfect people, imperfect government)
, Stalin's atrocities really is unpleasent for much socialists. Most of witch doesn't want to belive that the information was true, but tought thier numbers are incorrect, they are regretably true.
His government did a necessary thing and lots of good things for the socialist cause: Helping Cuba for instence, but was as imperfect as the man: Could be better, all governments can be better actually.

[Comrade Corwin]

People aren't just good or bad, people have their good side and their bad side. Governments made by people can't be good or bad either they have good sides and bad sides.
By the way good and bad are relative to referentials: what is good for socialism uses to be bad for capitalism.
Nikita Khrushchev isn't beloved because he told the world a few exagerated information about Stalin. Tought much of what he said was true and Stalin's government wasn't perfect,
(after all inperfect people, imperfect government)
, Stalin's atrocities really is unpleasent for much socialists. Most of witch doesn't want to belive that the information was true, but tought thier numbers are incorrect, they are regretably true.
His government did a necessary thing and lots of good things for the socialist cause: Helping Cuba for instence, but was as imperfect as the man: Could be better, all governments can be better actually.

I full-heartedly agree with your statement. People want things to simply be in black and white, but Khrushchev is not responsible for everything that happened during his relatively short period in power. His poor choices were mixed with good intentions, I'm sure, so to say he is good or bad as a person or leader is hard to state with definity.

[Jack]

Crushed the Hungarian Revolution.

Typical Leninist.

[Comrade Corwin]

I've heard the statement that Khrushchev crushed the Hungarian Revolution stated many times before, Jack. I'm unfortunately not as well versed in that region of history. I'd really be interested in knowing more about this Hungarian Revolution and what part Khrushchev had to play in it.
By the way, I'm a Leninist-Marxist and I definitely don't consider myself to be a hindrance to the Leftist Movement, so please don't use that as a term of insult.

[1917Bolshevik]

i think gorbechov was communist but was tiered with the anti-capitalist struggle. He didn't have much to work with.

[Dominicana_1965]

Are there any close to objective books from a leftist perspective regarding Khrushchev?

[Bright Banana Beard]

i think Gorbachev was communist but was tiered with the anti-capitalist struggle. He didn't have much to work with.
You gotta kidding me. Ismail used to have a link if he was. Too bad it not around anymore.

[Comrade Corwin]

Are there any close to objective books from a leftist perspective regarding Khrushchev?

I don't know if there is any objective leftist literature regarding Khrushchev, but I attempted to read his biography. It was just too damn long and tedious to be reading about an individual.
If anyone does have a book like Dominicana described, I'd like to know of its name as well.

[The Intransigent Faction]

You gotta kidding me. Ismail used to have a link if he was. Too bad it not around anymore.

Here it is:

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm

[Brother No. 1]

Nika was a fool who ask for a "peaceful co-existance" and thats certainly Anti-Communist. He also denouces Stalin,the Troskyists love that of course, and he made Revisionism in the CCCP which caused the Anio-Soviet Split. He also didnt know very well in office and even if he helped Fidel a little he didnt help him when the Capitalist dogs surrounded Cuba with their Destroyers. Soviets didnt really help in the Vietnam war either but then again Revisionism was there as well. Plus with the Revisionism there was some disagreements within the Warsaw pact the Anti-Revisionist eastern Europe Socialist nations openly spoke out against this Revisionism and denoucing of Stalin. While the Revisionist Nations supported it. So is he a good leader...No hes not.

[Hoxhaist]

Nikita's sole interest was becoming a czar. He saw the Soviet sphere of influence as his empire cloaked in socialist rhetoric. He undermined real revolutionary activity and betrayed Communist leaders like Dimitrov, Rakosi, Mao, and HOXHA who didnt kowtow to his Soviet-centric Comecon policies. Khruschev is the epitome of social-imperialism in his strategy of supporting revolution in areas that had assets, resources, or geography that caught Nikita's eye.

[Brother No. 1]

Guess thats why they called the Soviet Union the "evil Empire" other then for Capitalist propaganda.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I would have to say I hold a neutral opinion about Khrushchev. He was of course a party leader who shifted away from Socialism(well actually that started with Stalin, but Khrushchev continued it). He also brought the world to the brink of nuclear war although I think the whole Cuban Missile Crisis thing was silly. The Americans were concerned about missiles in Cuba yet they had missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. Hypocrisy much? I don't think Khrushchev should have backed down that easily to that. Both sides should have removed their missiles just to shut everybody up. I do however like that in the beginning he tried to make good relations with the west and exposed Stalin's crimes to the world. The west actually knew about the "De-Stalinization speech" before the Soviet people did.

[Brother No. 1]

(Quote) I do however like that in the beginning he tried to make good relations with the west and exposed Stalin's crimes to the world. The west actually knew about the "De-Stalinization speech" before the Soviet people did.(Quote)

sure dont all the Troskyists love that he denouced Joseph Stalin. Nika was a coward and he just amount of interest in cuba as the US did when spain had it. he was a Revisionist who made so many errors they even say "Nika proved that a idiot can run a state." He was a idiot for making the peaceful co-existance speech and making many Pro-Anti Revisionist's dis reagard this new CCCP. Besides his changes to the National anthem are very Nationalistic. The Revisionism in the CCCP created by him led to its downfall. Because of him Hoxha didnt want Soviet help, Sino-Soviet relations crashed, China and Vietnam fought when the Vietnam war was over, he didnt help Che when he needed it, didnt help cuba when it needed it, and thus created what the Capitalists used to classify the Soviet union as the "Evil Empire."

[LOLseph Stalin]

Besides his changes to the National anthem are very Nationalistic.

The old anthem had references to Stalin. Personality cult alert! O.o


Because of him Hoxha didnt want Soviet help

Hoxha was a Stalinist plain and simple. Of course he didn't want help from Khrushchev. He wasn't a Stalinist.


didnt help cuba when it needed it,

He tried to help Cuba. Of course the missiles weren't really the best method, but he tried.

[Brother No. 1]

(Quote)The old anthem had references to Stalin. Personality cult alert! O.o(quote)

Is that what you view me as? a Personal cultist? Do I say "Hail the great leader Stalin." Honestly....do you view all of us Anti-Revisionists as such? So its better then a Nationalistic anthem.


(Quote)Hoxha was a Stalinist plain and simple. Of course he didn't want help from Khrushchev. He wasn't a Stalinist.(Quote)


He was true to the MELS,Marx-Engel-Lenin-Stalin, way and didnt want Revisionism in his country. Nika denouced Stalin,called for peace co-existance, and barely helped in the Vietnam war. He didnt follow him for many reasons and those reasons are good.



(Quote)He tried to help Cuba. Of course the missiles weren't really the best method, but he tried.(Quote)


Tried to help cuba? 0.o He didnt help them at all! did he send ships to support them when he had place them in danger? No. did he help che on his final quest? No. Did he help Cuba after the Revolution? No Castro and Che did that. I can hardly see he has done anything to help them.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Tried to help cuba? 0.o He didnt help them at all! did he send ships to support them when he had place them in danger? No. did he help che on his final quest? No. Did he help Cuba after the Revolution? No Castro and Che did that. I can hardly see he has done anything to help them.

You have to remember that Stalin followed the idea of "Socialism in one country". That didn't seem to go away even after his death. Khrushchev was pretty much still a Stalinist except for the fact that he denounced his rule. He didn't give power to the workers, he kept the USSR as a bureacratic wasteland.


Is that what you view me as? a Personal cultist? Do I say "Hail the great leader Stalin." Honestly....do you view all of us Anti-Revisionists as such? So its better then a Nationalistic anthem.

Also, you should try to stop taking everything as a personal attack. I was criticizing Stalin, not you. You two are obviously two different people.

[Brother No. 1]

(quote)You have to remember that Stalin followed the idea of "Socialism in one country". That didn't seem to go away even after his death. Khrushchev was pretty much still a Stalinist except for the fact that he denounced his rule. He didn't give power to the workers, he kept the USSR as a bureacratic wasteland. (Quote)


How in the name of Lenin was this man a Stalinist? he hated Stalin to the very core or else why would he denouce the man. Besides all leaders after Stalin TURNED it into a Revisionist mess that had no hope of coming back. If he was a Stalinist he would have kept it Socialist and held the Sino-Soviet relations still good. did this happen? No. But you have your own Troskyist oppion and i have my own Anti-Revisionist oppion. Note: I wont ice pick you like Stalin did to Trosky.

[LOLseph Stalin]

he hated Stalin to the very core or else why would he denouce the man.

His denouncing of Stalin meant nothing. Khrushchev just wanted to look good. The Soviet Union pretty much stayed the same under Khrushchev's rule. Like I said, If there was true Socialism the workers would have been in control. Did that happen? No. The Communist party remained in power with their special privilages above everybody else.


Note: I wont ice pick you like Stalin did to Trosky.

Haha! I hope not.

[Brother No. 1]

(quote)His denouncing of Stalin meant nothing. Khrushchev just wanted to look good. The Soviet Union pretty much stayed the same under Khrushchev's rule. Like I said, If there was true Socialism the workers would have been in control. Did that happen? No. The Communist party remained in power with their special privilages above everybody else.(quote)


If only...the Central commite seems that have ruled everything. Did speical privilages exist when Stalin was in power...No.


(quote)Haha! I hope not. (quote)


You know I wouldn't ice pick you my Troskyist. For many reasons you know I wouldn't do it.

[Hoxhaist]

Khrushchev saw the Soviet bloc as his personal empire unlike Stalin who saw himself as the vanguard of revolution and keeper of the revolutionary flame of socialism in the USSR that would light the world. Khruschev's first act as leader was to neuter the power of the leaders of the Warsaw Pact and try to crush anyone who stood up to him like Rakosi and Hoxha. Comecon was transformed into a Soviet-centric tool of exploitation. Thats just some of the differences between Stalin and Khruschev! I'm not afraid to say, "Hail the great leader Stalin!" He was a great leader who took a backwards society devastated by civil war and turned into a superpower that made the West tremble.

[black magick hustla]

I generally try to avoid this threads because it always seems a spar between really bizarre hoxhaist museum curators and immature "stalin was a tyrant" people.

However, long before kruschev was in power, the stalinist faction had already put the whole comintern under its heel - making it some sort of political front for the russian state-capitalist state. It is well known how the *left wings* and the *trotskyists* were purged out of communist parties around the world and how the miserable popular frontism was basically an extension of the soviet state acting as a bourgeois state. I just find it really bizarre that stalinists think that when the last nail was shut on stalin's coffin, the soviets became capitalist. Its all really vulgar great men history.

[Cumannach]

However, long before kruschev was in power, the stalinist faction had already put the whole comintern under its heel - making it some sort of political front for the russian state-capitalist state. It is well known how the *left wings* and the *trotskyists* were purged out of communist parties around the world and how the miserable popular frontism was basically an extension of the soviet state acting as a bourgeois state. I just find it really bizarre that stalinists think that when the last nail was shut on stalin's coffin, the soviets became capitalist. Its all really vulgar great men history.

No, around the time of Stalin's death and after, revisionist capitalist restorationists managed to steal power from the workers' genuine representatives, authentic marxist-leninist communists. After 30 years of hacking away, the revisionists managed to fully destroy socialism and restore full blown capitalism. This is generally the anti-revisionist analysis, not any 'great man' theory.

[Comrade Corwin]

I'm sorry to burst the bubble of any Stalinists, but none of what Khrushchev did or the actions of the late politics of Lenin were revision in the eyes of history. The capitalist leanings were of policy change within the economy that were absolutely necessary for any nation, including the backwards czarist nation of Russia. Do not forget that Marx established his theory within the Communist Manifesto as a series of steps that are completely necessary to ensure the best governmental evolution. Stalin blatantly ignored those steps and while 10% of Russia was bursting with infrustructural progress the other 90% left the rest of Russia muddling around in the dirt roads with barely a lightbulb to each family's name. Lenin saw this as a problem that could only be solved by the economic progress brought about by capitalist economic policies, but placed under the control of a progressive government that ensured that the basic rights of the people were not crushed under the wheel of rapid progress. Stalin caught the word in a revolutionary ferver that made him a great leader of words and steel, but a loose cannon that eventually led to the fall of the Soviet regime. Revisionism wasn't the fall of the Communist block, greed of government officials, class seperation and authoritarianism of Stalinism did. I'm sorry. I'm no Trotskyite, but I would not praise the antics of Stalin and destroy the reputation of Khrushchev because of his lack of support for a failing governmental system.
People are strange. I like to not to be blinded by propaganda created by any one man. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Trotsky, Che, Fidel, Marx... they are all just men, they should not have complete control over us. I follow the teachings of Marx as they have evolved, but not a man through blind faith in government.
Honestly I lost where I was going with this. I just saw all this rambling on and kind of went off on a tangent. This discussion is maddening. I cannot make heads or tales of even the sanity of the people talking on this post.

[Hoxhaist]

No, around the time of Stalin's death and after, revisionist capitalist restorationists managed to steal power from the workers' genuine representatives, authentic marxist-leninist communists. After 30 years of hacking away, the revisionists managed to fully destroy socialism and restore full blown capitalism. This is generally the anti-revisionist analysis, not any 'great man' theory.
Revisionism was let loose upon the world stage through Khrushchev's USSR and it proved disastrous for the Soviet Union, so Khruschev= B-A-D

[Comrade Corwin]

Could you please lay out in a nice little compact list what Revisionism is to you? I'd really like to know. I like to see all sides, honestly...

[Hoxhaist]

Wikipedia says:
Within the Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) movement, the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism_(Marxism)#cite_note-0) The term is most often used by those Marxists who believe that such revisions are unwarranted and represent a "watering down" or abandonment of Marxism. As such, revisionism often carries pejorative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) connotations. Few Marxists label themselves as revisionists. The opposing term and concept, even used among Marxists, is Marxist dogmatism.
The term "revisionism" has been used in a number of different contexts to refer to a number of different revisions (or claimed revisions) of Marxist theory:

In the late 19th century, revisionism was used to describe social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats) writers such as Eduard Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein) and Jean Jaurès (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jaur%C3%A8s), who sought to revise Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx)'s ideas about the transition to socialism and claimed that a revolution through force was not necessary to achieve a socialist society. The views of Bernstein and Jaurès gave rise to reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism) theory, which asserts that socialism can be achieved through gradual peaceful reforms from within a capitalist system.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism_(Marxism)#cite_note-1)


In the 1940s and 1950s within the international communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) movement, revisionism was a term used by Stalinists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism) to describe communists who focused on consumer goods production instead of heavy industry, accepted national differences and encouraged democratic reforms. Revisionism was one of the charges leveled at Titoists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito) in a series of purges beginning in 1949 in Eastern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe). After Stalin's death revisionism became briefly acceptable in Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) during Imre Nagy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Nagy)'s government (1953-1955) and in Poland during Władysław Gomułka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Gomu%C5%82ka)'s government, although neither Nagy nor Gomułka described themselves as revisionists.


Following the Soviet repression of the Hungarian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution,_1956) in 1956, many people, particularly intellectuals, resigned from western Communist parties in protest. They were sometimes accused of revisionism by "loyalist" Communists. E. P. Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Thompson)'s New Reasoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Reasoner) was an example of this revisionism. This movement eventually became known as the New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left).


In the early 1960s, Mao Zedong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong) and the Communist Party of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China) revived the term revisionism to attack Nikita Khrushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev) and the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) over various ideological and political issues, as part of the Sino-Soviet split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split). The Chinese routinely described the Soviets as "modern revisionists" through the 1960s. This usage was copied by the various Maoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) groups that split off from Communist parties around the world. In 1978, the Sino-Albanian Split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_Split) occurred, which caused Enver Hoxha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha), the General Secretary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary) of Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_People%27s_Republic_of_Albania), to also condemn Maoism as revisionist. This caused a split in the Maoist movement, with some following the Albanian Party of Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Party_of_Labour)'s line, most notably the Communist Party of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_New_Zealand) and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada_(Marxist-Leninist)).

[Hoxhaist]

this website goes much more indepth:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030118061228/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/CommunistLeague/COMPASS92_RESTORATIONCAPITAL.htm

[Comrade Corwin]

Honestly, I might find myself being somewhat of a revisionist. Not because I wish to put aside the revolution and the many forms it must take across the globe to succeed, but because I do believe that some sections of modern society have opened up possible channels of communication that allow for peaceful resolutions that will lead to socialism (eventually communism) and a democratic system that allows the voices of the people to be heard. This may be frowned upon by some, but I am willing to discuss such beliefs openly and to a degree allowing for proper ideological debate.
I believe Marxist theory was the gate into a new era of intellectual discussion, but I don't believe even Marx himself saw himself an unquestionable philosopher and economist. I think he, and those who followed in his footsteps, would want us to bring their philosophies into a more modern perspective. Let’s not let our glorious philosophy of the people die because we wish to cling to useless tradition.
This may be why I do no harbor such hatred for Khrushchev. I do not see him as a success or failure as I find him to be a man of the past. I believe the downfall of the Soviet block was more the fault of fascists like the later, power hungry Premiers of the Soviet Union rather than the fault of those who attempted to open controlled levees of capitalism into the dying Russian market.
Thank you for you diligent and thoughtful presentation of information, Hoxhaist.

[Pogue]

Nika was a fool who ask for a "peaceful co-existance" and thats certainly Anti-Communist. He also denouces Stalin,the Troskyists love that of course, and he made Revisionism in the CCCP which caused the Anio-Soviet Split. He also didnt know very well in office and even if he helped Fidel a little he didnt help him when the Capitalist dogs surrounded Cuba with their Destroyers. Soviets didnt really help in the Vietnam war either but then again Revisionism was there as well. Plus with the Revisionism there was some disagreements within the Warsaw pact the Anti-Revisionist eastern Europe Socialist nations openly spoke out against this Revisionism and denoucing of Stalin. While the Revisionist Nations supported it. So is he a good leader...No hes not.

Actually every Trotskyist I know is opposed to Khrushchev and his policies. Are you talking about the mythical nightmare Trotskyist you hardcore Leninist types conjure up to justify your little cult?

[Brother No. 1]

Actually every Trotskyist I know is opposed to Khrushchev and his policies.

Now did I say Troskyist support him in my quote or do you just asume that like you asume everything I do?


Are you talking about the mythical nightmare Trotskyist you hardcore Leninist types conjure up to justify your little cult?

Am I a cultist or are you just asuming me for your every hardcore against my politics.
Really you think all us ARs are cultists and its pathetic to be a "Stalinist" in this century. My question is wheres the cult for I dont see it.