Why was Khrushchev a Revisionist?

[Marxist Napoleon]

I've heard that the Soviet Union became revisionist after Stalin's death. What economic reforms did Khrushchev make that were so anti-Marxist? Why is Khrushchev called anti-revolutionary? I would think that since Stalin focused on setting up Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe, and Khrushchev allowed the Cubans to forge their own revolutionary path, that Khrushchev was more progressive with foreign affairs. Didn't post-Stalin Soviet Union do a lot to liberate Africa and Asia from colonialism? Politically, I seem to support Khrushchev's reforms, because they freed up culture and literature a little bit. Am I missing something here?

[Faux Real]

He was a social Imperialist and was willing to obliterate the world to forge his empire.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by rev0lt@November 12, 2007 08:21 pm
He was a social Imperialist and was willing to obliterate the world to forge his empire.

I see what you did there.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by Marxist Napoleon@November 12, 2007 07:14 pm
I've heard that the Soviet Union became revisionist after Stalin's death. What economic reforms did Khrushchev make that were so anti-Marxist? Why is Khrushchev called anti-revolutionary? I would think that since Stalin focused on setting up Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe, and Khrushchev allowed the Cubans to forge their own revolutionary path, that Khrushchev was more progressive with foreign affairs. Didn't post-Stalin Soviet Union do a lot to liberate Africa and Asia from colonialism? Politically, I seem to support Khrushchev's reforms, because they freed up culture and literature a little bit. Am I missing something here?

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/KPC64.html

The other documents from the "Sino-Soviet" split are also good reads.

[Ismail]

He condemned Stalin's legacy, and did things like crush the Hungarian revolt. He also wanted certain nations in the Warsaw Pact to be "specialized" in certain areas of production. Albania would basically be a giant granary, etc while the USSR under his leadership was also beginning to try and exert its influence across the world via attempting to "export" the revolution, etc. Brezhnev was a lot worse, but Khrushchev was still pretty damned bad and represented the rise of the revisionists.

For example, when Albania began to break away from Soviet influence, Khrushchev occupied an Albanian port and threatened to keep it occupied by Soviet troops, all because Hoxha claimed that the USSR was heading away from Socialism and that Khrushchev should of reviewed his foreign policy and its compatibility with Marxist-Leninism.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Mrdie@November 12, 2007 09:26 pm
He condemned Stalin's legacy, and did things like crush the Hungarian revolt. He also wanted certain nations in the Warsaw Pact to be "specialized" in certain areas of production. Albania would basically be a giant granary, etc while the USSR under his leadership was also beginning to try and exert its influence across the world via attempting to "export" the revolution, etc. Brezhnev was a lot worse, but Khrushchev was still pretty damned bad and represented the rise of the revisionists.

For example, when Albania began to break away from Soviet influence, Khrushchev occupied an Albanian port and threatened to keep it occupied by Soviet troops, all because Hoxha claimed that the USSR was heading away from Socialism and that Khrushchev should of reviewed his foreign policy and its compatibility with Marxist-Leninism.

And what would Stalin have done with the Hungarian revolt?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by RedJacobin+November 12, 2007 11:00 pm--> (RedJacobin @ November 12, 2007 11:00 pm)

Marxist Napoleon

@November 12, 2007 07:14 pm
I've heard that the Soviet Union became revisionist after Stalin's death. What economic reforms did Khrushchev make that were so anti-Marxist? Why is Khrushchev called anti-revolutionary? I would think that since Stalin focused on setting up Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe, and Khrushchev allowed the Cubans to forge their own revolutionary path, that Khrushchev was more progressive with foreign affairs. Didn't post-Stalin Soviet Union do a lot to liberate Africa and Asia from colonialism? Politically, I seem to support Khrushchev's reforms, because they freed up culture and literature a little bit. Am I missing something here?

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/KPC64.html

The other documents from the "Sino-Soviet" split are also good reads. [/b]

After scanning through that document, it seems that the accusations brought against Khrushchev are as follows:

1. Under Khrushchev's leadership there were some people (mostly bureaucrats) in the Soviet Union using illegal means to exert private control over some means of production that were supposed to be public property.

2. He put the geopolitical interests of the Soviet Union above the international interests of the proletariat.

3. He gave up the idea that there was a class struggle to be waged within Soviet society between the proletariat and remaining bourgeois elements, and focused instead on economic development and trying to raise standards of living.

And now for my answers to those accusations:

1. and 2. - No shit, Sherlock. The Soviet Union had an emerging new ruling class of bureaucrats and looked after its own national self-interest? Well duh, of course it did! But Khrushchev cannot be blamed for these problems. The emerging new ruling class of bureaucrats was there since Stalin. In fact, if you count the Nepmen, it was there since Lenin. Likewise, Stalin was the one who pioneered the foreign policy of sacrificing the interests of the proletariat for the sake of increasing the power of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev merely followed the same line.

3. True, it was a huge mistake on Khrushchev's part to believe that there were no forces within the Soviet Union trying to re-establish class relations and exploitation. But then again, Mao's Cultural Revolution turned out to be an abysmal failure in combating such trends - seeing how Deng Xiaoping took over less than a decade after Mao's death - so Maoists are hardly in a position to lecture the Soviet Union about capitalist restauration.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Serpent@November 12, 2007 04:46 pm
And what would Stalin have done with the Hungarian revolt?

Probably would of acted as a liberating force rather than an occupying one, working alongside with the proletariat and then withdrawing troops when all was clear and keeping them at the border in the case of US intervention or Fascist resurgence.

[Marxist Napoleon]

Okay, I can agree with most of these claims, but can't a lot of them be applied to Stalin as well? Didn't the Soviet bureaucracy originate with Stalin, and weren't the Soviet satellites oppressed even more under Stalin? Also, did post-Khrushchev Soviet leaders get the label revisionist? If anything, it seems like the Soviet Union's problems got worse after Khrushchev. And to what extent does this label scar a person's legacy? Didn't Khrushchev play a somewhat positive role in creating affordable housing?

[Dimentio]

Let me just make a short statement:

Marx was not a marxist, marxism-leninism is only on the surface related to marxism, and you need to rewind back to Marx and apply his thinking...

[Prairie Fire]

No one has brought up Kruschevs ideological blunders. <_<

You know how some communist parties believe that you can get into power through electoral democracy? Well, that was Nicky&#39;s idea. Notice, the parties that sided with China didn&#39;t try parliamentary democracy, and niether did many that followed Trotsky. That was Kruschev, and his line of peaceful transition to socialism. Also, it was Kruschev who put forward the line of peaceful competition with the capitalist sphere of the USA/NATO.

As Mr.Die allready pointed out, the USSR under Kruschev didn&#39;t encourage independence in the rest of the socialist world, trying to turn every other socialist country into a soviet Banana republic, specializing in production of a raw material cash-crop for export to the USSR; this is part of the reason why when the USSR went down, they took most of the rest of the socialist world with them. This is also the reason that Cuba had to adopt massive tourism and initiate the special economic period.

Now, there was also his militaristic interventions in Hungary and Czechoslavakia (among other places.), which signalled the beginning of social-imperialist military intervention.

In addition to all of this, the Kruschevite Soviet Union saw the rise of underground workshops and a thriving underground capitalist economy.

Serpent:

And what would Stalin have done with the Hungarian revolt?

This (rehtorical) question supposes that the hungarian revolt was inevitable.
Perhaps a better question would be "would the Hungarian revolt have happened
if Stalin had still been alive/general secretary?". Perhaps the fact that the Hungarian revolt didn&#39;t happen until Kruschev assumed power is indicative of where the begining of the problem lies.

Let me just make a short statement:

Marx was not a marxist, marxism-leninism is only on the surface related to marxism, and you need to rewind back to Marx and apply his thinking...

Let me make a shorter statement:

Study harder; hit the books again. You&#39;ll get it eventually.

[Prairie Fire]

Perhaps incorrect phrasing...

I mean that these were the initiatives and political lines put forward by Niktia Kruschev and his collaborators.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by RavenBlade+November 13, 2007 02:48 am--> (RavenBlade @ November 13, 2007 02:48 am) As Mr.Die allready pointed out, the USSR under Kruschev didn&#39;t encourage independence in the rest of the socialist world [/b]

And Stalin did??

Look, my problem with criticisms of Khrushchev is that all of them can apply equally well to Stalin, whereas not all criticisms of Stalin can apply to Khrushchev. In other words, overall, Khrushchev was better than Stalin.

RavenBlade

this is part of the reason why when the USSR went down, they took most of the rest of the socialist world with them.

Actually, it was the other way around: Eastern Europe fell first, then the Soviet Union was brought down two years later.

In a way, the events of 1989-1991 vindicated the Brezhnev Doctrine: the restauration of capitalism in one Eastern Bloc nation led to the restauration of capitalism everywhere. Gorbachev should have intervened against Solidarity in Poland. Unfortunately, he was - and is - an idiot.

[Rawthentic]

But then again, Mao&#39;s Cultural Revolution turned out to be an abysmal failure in combating such trends - seeing how Deng Xiaoping took over less than a decade after Mao&#39;s death - so Maoists are hardly in a position to lecture the Soviet Union about capitalist restauration

The importance is how much an advance to communist theory this was. If it wasnt for the GPCR, do you think socialism would have lasted for so long? It should have been a more continuous process, in my opinion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Live for the People@November 13, 2007 05:37 pm
The importance is how much an advance to communist theory this was. If it wasnt for the GPCR, do you think socialism would have lasted for so long?

Yes. The Soviet Union, which had no cultural revolution, resisted capitalist restauration longer than China.

I must stress the importance of the fact that Deng took over less than 10 years after the GPCR ended. When you compare China with the "revisionist" countries, the GPCR seems to have had almost no effect at all. China did not fare better than the "revisionist" countries, and in some respects it fared worse.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by RavenBlade@November 13, 2007 12:48 am
No one has brought up Kruschevs ideological blunders. <_<

You know how some communist parties believe that you can get into power through electoral democracy? Well, that was Nicky&#39;s idea. Notice, the parties that sided with China didn&#39;t try parliamentary democracy, and niether did many that followed Trotsky. That was Kruschev, and his line of peaceful transition to socialism. Also, it was Kruschev who put forward the line of peaceful competition with the capitalist sphere of the USA/NATO.

As Mr.Die allready pointed out, the USSR under Kruschev didn&#39;t encourage independence in the rest of the socialist world, trying to turn every other socialist country into a soviet Banana republic, specializing in production of a raw material cash-crop for export to the USSR; this is part of the reason why when the USSR went down, they took most of the rest of the socialist world with them. This is also the reason that Cuba had to adopt massive tourism and initiate the special economic period.

Now, there was also his militaristic interventions in Hungary and Czechoslavakia (among other places.), which signalled the beginning of social-imperialist military intervention.

In addition to all of this, the Kruschevite Soviet Union saw the rise of underground workshops and a thriving underground capitalist economy.

Serpent:

And what would Stalin have done with the Hungarian revolt?

This (rehtorical) question supposes that the hungarian revolt was inevitable.
Perhaps a better question would be "would the Hungarian revolt have happened
if Stalin had still been alive/general secretary?". Perhaps the fact that the Hungarian revolt didn&#39;t happen until Kruschev assumed power is indicative of where the begining of the problem lies.

Let me just make a short statement:

Marx was not a marxist, marxism-leninism is only on the surface related to marxism, and you need to rewind back to Marx and apply his thinking...

Let me make a shorter statement:

Study harder; hit the books again. You&#39;ll get it eventually.

Thanks, but I am like Marx, no marxist ^^

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Mrdie+November 12, 2007 10:42 pm--> (Mrdie @ November 12, 2007 10:42 pm)

Serpent

@November 12, 2007 04:46 pm
And what would Stalin have done with the Hungarian revolt?

Probably would of acted as a liberating force rather than an occupying one, working alongside with the proletariat and then withdrawing troops when all was clear and keeping them at the border in the case of US intervention or Fascist resurgence. [/b]

Yeah, that is exactly what he did in Spain 1936. <_<

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Serpent+November 13, 2007 05:36 pm--> (Serpent @ November 13, 2007 05:36 pm)

RavenBlade

@November 13, 2007 12:48 am
No one has brought up Kruschevs ideological blunders. <_<

You know how some communist parties believe that you can get into power through electoral democracy? Well, that was Nicky&#39;s idea. Notice, the parties that sided with China didn&#39;t try parliamentary democracy, and niether did many that followed Trotsky. That was Kruschev, and his line of peaceful transition to socialism. Also, it was Kruschev who put forward the line of peaceful competition with the capitalist sphere of the USA/NATO.

As Mr.Die allready pointed out, the USSR under Kruschev didn&#39;t encourage independence in the rest of the socialist world, trying to turn every other socialist country into a soviet Banana republic, specializing in production of a raw material cash-crop for export to the USSR; this is part of the reason why when the USSR went down, they took most of the rest of the socialist world with them. This is also the reason that Cuba had to adopt massive tourism and initiate the special economic period.

Now, there was also his militaristic interventions in Hungary and Czechoslavakia (among other places.), which signalled the beginning of social-imperialist military intervention.

In addition to all of this, the Kruschevite Soviet Union saw the rise of underground workshops and a thriving underground capitalist economy.

Serpent:

And what would Stalin have done with the Hungarian revolt?

This (rehtorical) question supposes that the hungarian revolt was inevitable.
Perhaps a better question would be "would the Hungarian revolt have happened
if Stalin had still been alive/general secretary?". Perhaps the fact that the Hungarian revolt didn&#39;t happen until Kruschev assumed power is indicative of where the begining of the problem lies.

Let me just make a short statement:

Marx was not a marxist, marxism-leninism is only on the surface related to marxism, and you need to rewind back to Marx and apply his thinking...

Let me make a shorter statement:

Study harder; hit the books again. You&#39;ll get it eventually.

Thanks, but I am like Marx, no marxist ^^ [/b]

When marx said he wasnt a marxist, he meant that lasalle&#39;s social democrats were calling themselves "marxists" and that he wouldn&#39;t be part of that.

[UndergroundConnexion]

He criticized Stalin , aaaaawww. Stalinist see people who do that directly as trotskist or revisionist
He should have been much harsher on that for fuck&#39;s sake.
And then these bureaucratic ****s leaded by brezhnev put him off.

[Rawthentic]

Yes. The Soviet Union, which had no cultural revolution, resisted capitalist restauration longer than China.

I must stress the importance of the fact that Deng took over less than 10 years after the GPCR ended. When you compare China with the "revisionist" countries, the GPCR seems to have had almost no effect at all. China did not fare better than the "revisionist" countries, and in some respects it fared worse.

Interesting point here.

Conditions in China were much different, but in no other socialist country did the masses rise up to revolutionize society as in China. I was speaking more in terms of the advance in Marxism it is.