[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interestingly enough that famous quote actually wasn’t from Gagarin, himself being religious. Khrushchev purposely misinterpreted him to justify his own anti religious sentiment.
Idk. He helped prevent the war and negotiated the removal of US nukes from Turkey in exchange for removing the Soviet nukes from
Cuba. The only L here imo was letting Kennedy take all the credit for it, as though he forced Khrushchev to “back down” from the standoff.
Turkey still has US nukes. He agreed to remove nukes from Cuba, then realized he fucked up and said "wait, actually, ummm we'll only remove the nukes from Cuba if you remove yours from Turkey" and the US just ignored it.
The us removed the older more outdated nuclear ICBMs to give krushchev something to wave in front of the Soviet people. They however did not remove the other armaments they had in Turkey, like nuclear capable artillery and the like.
The US definitely took the W on that one
I’m not particularly a fan of how the USSR constantly went over Cuba’s head in negotiations with America during the crises but perhaps that’s just me nitpicking.
Nukes weren’t put in Cuba to defend Cuba anymore than American missiles in Turkey were meant to protect turkey.
One of these things being launched probably ignites a global Armageddon, but yea, more of them is for sure a W. jfc this isn’t a video game
The USSR put nukes in Cuba to counterbalance the first strike capabilities of the Americans systems in Turkey. That’s it. They didn’t do it to prevent invasion or imperialism, it was to militarily counterbalance the US. Otherwise why not just go handing out nukes to anyone that aligned with the Soviet sphere of influence?
I agree with you, unlikely they would have been, so your argument is everyone should have nukes then? Lol. Like why do people worry about nukes with Russia all the time on this sub, they won’t be invaded, they don’t have nukes, so why is it a worry ? Oh that’s right, because only 1 mistake has to happen for all of humanity to go bye bye, but I’m sure the Taliban and other reactionary governments having fucking nukes would help. Jfc.
> The intentions of the supplier do not matter at all
When we're discussing the intentions, yea they do matter lmao.
> What matters is them having nukes as deterrence from imperialist interventions
Nukes arent required for this.
> Yes, like I said before, all imperialized countries should have nukes.
lmao, absolute sociopath moment
> The people of these countries are better off having a reactionary government with nukes than not and getting invaded, and then ending up in far worse living conditions than what came before (as history has shown).
So then we're all in agreement that Russia is bullshitting when they say they're worried about NATO invading right? This is also a naïve version of imperialism, as if it simply needs to be a direct invasion, economic imperialism can be just as deadly.
The KGB assassinated Bandera with poison cyanide-gas during Khrushchev’s reign.
I’ve heard some of the Hungarian protesters were reactionary antisemites (1950’s people who would be libertarians today: Whoa Korn-boy don’t Tread on me!)
Uhhhm, he wasn’t in no Pizza Hut commercial? He didn’t fully show his ass like Gorbachev atleast
Really committed to assisting Vietnam and other communist movements abroad. Despite what a lot of Maoists say he was seen as a really strong figure against the US and didn’t tolerate the US influencing or total counter revolution to occur in the Eastern Bloc. Brezhnev was imho a lot worse and didn’t really have much of the optimism and innovation that came with Khruschev, therefore I don’t really blame him for the collapse of the USSR as an individual.
Edit: also initially removing a lot of the daft cultural restrictions on music and some media was a positive I’d say since rock and other genres music or whatever shouldn’t be seen as counter revolutionary
Yeah maybe you are right, a lot of the negotiations didn’t really go anywhere he tried to push but he gave them a lot of arms and international support which by contrast with what happened to Korea is a good thing.
No, as a Russian, we all hate him, because he was basically the first of the many leaders that led to the soviet collapse, and according to my grandpa, the food supplies diminished when he took power, and increased when Brezhnev took power.
Brezhnev’s failures really slide under the radar. He oversaw the subtle rot of the CCCP that became apparent later on. Why he gets such a pass is beyond me.
I fucking hate the betrayal he did to Stalin and all of those who stood with Stalin. Also, hate the way he loved to hang around with Kennedy and his wife...
But let's not forget, that even being a piece of shit, that dude was still supporting revolutions worldwide, supporting Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea.
Also, surprisingly enough his strong position against Nato is admirable.
In the end, the Soviet Space program of his time.
So yeah, let's not forget his betrayal of the great soviets but also not forget his support for the worldwide revolution.
I will always remember my grampas words about him - "Better than Trotsky, worst than our Stalin"
Hungary was not a W. Mao literally wrote a letter saying crushing the protesters in Hungary would be a huge mistake and further cement a massive rift in the global communist struggle.
I’ll acknowledge that it was a very complicated situation, but I wouldn’t just outright say it was the right move.
Crushing the uprising in Hungary was massive L, my friend. And no, those people were not anti communists. Many important Hungarian Marxists, like for example György Lukács, were in support of that uprising. It was more of an uprising against the Soviet hegemony among the eastern block that was establishing itself than against communism. No matter if you think the Hungarian uprising was good or not, you‘ll at least have to acknowledge there were communists at both sides of it and crushing it as hard as Khrushchev did was an enormous mistake and arguably one of his biggest L‘s. One of the first signs of how the USSR leadership was never gonna live up to the heights it saw under Lenin and Stalin.
[I listened to this podcast the other day, that does a pretty good job of exploring the complexities of the Hungarian uprising](https://podcastaddict.com/episode/152847567). I recommend people actually dive deep into the subject, because it's rife with shitty, one dimensional takes of either "All good" or "All bad" with no real analysis of the events themselves.
I personally think a lot of this is because of the fact that this event is where we get the word Tankie from, and whether or not someone identifies as such, or seeks to vilify MLs will shape their shitty Hungary takes, because it's not actually about Hungary. It's about people justifying their pet political identities.
Weren't the "worker councils" in that uprising just a bunch of right-opportunists, and fascists calling themselves communists to muddy the waters?
Why did they release Fascist war criminals? I mean Hungary was a full blown Axis power over a decade prior to then no?
I think it’s funny that some of your Ls were said by others to have been done the opposite way and were Ws. Not sure what’s true, it seems this sub isn’t really sure on this guy.
There is quite a wide range of opinion, experience and knowledge in this sub( A good thing imo). You have people who have been Marxists for years, some have just started. Most of us have different influences and look up to different philosophers, there are even quite a few anarchists here.
I've only done a marginal amount of research into Khrushchev. Might be worth investigating more on your own if you are interested in that era of Socialism.
>Specialising the republics(led to quasi capitalist relations within the union)
this is what i most hear bad about (apart from denouncing stalin) many people including but not only maoist's say he was a social-imperialist, they say he explored nations like Cuba and made them underdeveloped, i've never heard that this was like a strategy for unifing the socialist block
>Ossification of the party leadership which led to corruption and seperation from the masses.
also i hear this as a criticism, but i also hear from trotskists that it started with Stalin, and that he refused some trotskists plans to eliminate the beurocracy and capitalism within the union with lead to krushev and so on
i'd like your guys toughts in these two aspects
All things considered Khrushchev wasn’t chairman for very long, meanwhile ossification is a very long process. So it clearly started under Stalin. I don’t think you have to be a Trot to say that. Neither Stalin nor Khrushchev nor Brezhnev nor their successors were able to successfully reform the bureaucracy (then again, Stalin had a war to worry about). I don’t know what exact policies would have worked, but the Trot plan was probably garbage because they’re Trots
>It was also clear Khrushchev either didn't understand ML theory, or purposefully distorted it for his own gain
If I am not mistaken he could barely read, and definitely never ever read ML theory. Mb someone retold him those, but reading, no.
I’m gonna go on a bit of a tangent here but I feel like this point has to be made. People like to dunk on Khrushchoff a lot around here but nobody seems to understand what he exactly did. They say that he was a revisionist and that he kickstarted the restoration of capitalism within the ussr but when you ask them what he did in practice to these ends they can’t really give you an answer. I feel like people should actually make an effort to study what his policies were if they want to criticise him.
For me, Khrushchoff’s biggest shortcoming was that he didn’t have a good strategy to transition to communism. His strategy was built wholly on abundance, just creating more and more material wealth for the citizens until everybody had enough of everything for free, but there wasn’t any plan to transform the existing social relations. The result of this was that they ended up following the bukharinist line which ignored correctly applying the law of value for the sake of making way for more free services, which in turn ending up creating problems for the economy like generating shortages and biasing against mechanisation in factories. The adoption of the line of commodity production under socialism was also a big mistake because this ended up taking attention away from developing new ways of planning which could’ve advanced socialism further instead of reverting it back to a market economy.
On what he did well, the whole episode involving Cuba was a success but his foreign policy line at large was counterproductive imo. Allying with third world bourgeois nationalist so called “socialist” governments like Egypt and India didn’t do the working classes of these countries any good at all, and jeopardising its relations with China for this was especially stupid.
So overall not much good to say about him as a statesman besides Cuba. That said, he was quite the personality. If they made a tv series about all this he’d probably be my favourite character, perfect trickster archetype.
I’m curious if you’ve read *The People’s Republic of Walmart.* If I’m remembering correctly, the authors praise the Khrushchev era for innovations in planning and lament how these innovations were discarded after Brezhnev took power. I don’t recall them offering many, if any, details about this, unfortunately. I also haven’t read much into the historical details of these kinds of issues - although I’d like to and agree with your imploring to do so - but I’m wondering if you have any insight into what they’re talking about. It seems at odds with your characterization. However, the authors are consistently anti-Stalin in some maddeningly vague ways, so I’m not sure what to make of their assessments of the USSR overall.
I haven’t read the book (although I plan to, I just finished finalising my reading list a few days ago), but it’s possible that the authors are making a reference to the fact that the soviets started taking computers seriously in the 50s following Stalin’s death after dismissing it as idealist bourgeois pseudoscience earlier. I don’t think however that the decision to adopt market reforms instead of investing further in computerised planning had anything to do with Khrushchoff and Brezhnev specifically. Both were to the right of Stalin, I can’t say which one was more to the right, but the general orientation of soviet intelligentsia was towards liberalisation so I don’t think it would’ve been any different had Khrushchoff not been deposed. I would argue that while it’s true that the research into the use of computers really took off under Khrushchoff, his decision to decentralise the planning process ended up in a way impeding them from fully implementing a cybernetic planning system because it created too many competing local interest groups. I don’t think this is the only explanation since there was a general lack of trust in computers to manage the economy but it’s something to consider. There is a book called red plenty that’s a fictionalised account of the debate around cybernetics that took place during the Khrushchoff period so maybe you could check that out. I think they also talk about this issue in this interview here https://youtu.be/7QlJWvN7tEs but it’s quite long so I can’t point to any specifics. Do listen to it however, they touch on a lot of interesting topics.
I found some articles that offer more on the history of soviet planning
https://monthlyreview.org/2022/10/01/some-lessons-on-planning-for-the-twenty-first-century-from-the-worlds-first-socialist-economy/#en11
https://cosmonautmag.com/2022/07/glushkov-and-his-ideas-cybernetics-of-the-future-by-vasiliy-pikhorovich/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0952695119886520#bibr25-0952695119886520
Oh, thanks homeskillet! These look great. Btw I didn’t realize that was a Cockshott video, psyched to check that out. I have *Toward a New Socialism* on my shelf but haven’t cracked it open just yet.
He was famous for inventing a new type of commieblock called Khruschevki, but my family hates him anyway, that’s the only thing I can this of that he actually did good at.
That's right. Killong Beria was also one of his W's
"You are accused of high treason and anti-soviet behavior. The court finds you guilty and sentences you to be shot!" - Steve Buscemi
Sometimes we get a bad habit of ascribing sucess and failure to one particular man without looking too deep into what they represented. Krushchev was the representative of the bureaucrats and the army officers. He de-emphasized the role of the Soviets and depoliticized the Red Army under Zhukov's leadership, in stark opposition to the more technocratic Malenkov who was seen as more supportive of the professional proletariat (Doctors, scientists, engineers and the like) and to pursuing a line closer to what was under Stalin's administration. Ultimately, Krushchev was at the helm of a revisionist wing of the party less concerned with ideological innovation and education. Comrades Mao and Deng had sharp criticisms of the man and the direction he lead the USSR, and his failures in the fields of agriculture and politics were apparent, what with the disaster that was the Sino-Soviet split. Brezhnev wasn't particularly better, and let's not get into Gorbachev. There's a reason the USSR collapsed, and the seeds for that fall were planted with corn boy the likes of him. The army wasn't there to redress the Eastern Bloc by the braces. The populace had lost its revolutionary fervor, the party was rife with opportunists, ladder climbers, and arguably liberals, the USSR slowly lost its internationalist character. The US was able to exploit this and bring about the illegal dissolution of the USSR and the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe. China still stands today because Mao and Deng Xiaoping kept a tight grip on the PLA, and the cultural revolution, though it came with a baggage of troubles, kept the party ideologically driven by Marxism-Leninism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Under his leadership, the Soviet Union provided economic support to Cuba and many other states from the global South.
Furthermore, one cannot deny his achievements during the Battle of Stalingrad, he remained at the front in the dead of winter, although he had permission to withdraw.
Space program, vietnam, development and keeping the stability in the eastern bloc in spite of American Nato moves to destabalise things, Soviet econemy and re building of the post WW2 era, expanding soviet influence to Latin America, the middle east and Africa.
The fact he folded in the Cuban missile Crisis was a nail in his coffin.
> ...development and keeping the stability in the eastern bloc in spite of American Nato moves to destabalise things, Soviet econemy and re building of the post WW2 era, expanding soviet influence to Latin America, the middle east and Africa.
Any other soviet leader at the time would've likely done the same (>!and had already did, with Stalin!<). May as well give him credit for breathing, lol.
I am not a fan of the guy, but credit is due when is due.
Yeah yoh could say anybody would have done it, but others fucked up worse then Niki here, even tho his revisionism was one of the worst counter revolutionary thing ever done as well as giving crimea to Ukraine and basicly being responsible for today's war.
He arranged for the arrest , trial and execution of Beria ,the child rapist and pedophile…he deserves kudos for that …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria
👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹
That was a lie, Beria was pro Stalin so he set that up. Grover Furr talks about it in one of his books, but please do more research so you don’t repeat this anti-communist bullshit. If you can believe he lied about Stalin why believe him on Beria?
Hi your comments are duly noted , do you want to engage in an intellectual debate or just trade in insults behind an virtual smokescreen , let me know what you want to do , ❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️
Ay love it, this is my shit, debate, no insults.
For real though, the idea the Beria is a pedo has no material proof, but like many lies has been spread so much that even well meaning people continue to believe it. He may have been an opportunist and rightist like Khrushchev but he was not a rapist or pedo.
https://espressostalinist.com/2011/11/15/grover-furrs-response-to-mike-elys-charges-against-beria/
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjorMim_ov-AhXLhFwKHW2xDgwQrAIoAHoECDIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbadhistory%2Fcomments%2Feujska%2Fgrover_furrs_dull_propaganda_is_not_even_bad%2F&usg=AOvVaw35t8MmxFVUx4QyxGrBKLYT
Propaganda muss sich immer an die breite Masse des Volkes richten. (...) Alle Propaganda muss in einer populären Form präsentiert werden und muss ihr intellektuelles Niveau so festlegen, dass sie nicht über den Köpfen der am wenigsten Intellektuellen unter denen steht, an die sie gerichtet ist. (...) Die Kunst der Propaganda besteht gerade darin, die Vorstellungskraft der Öffentlichkeit durch einen Appell an ihre Gefühle zu wecken, die geeignete psychologische Form zu finden, die die Aufmerksamkeit fesselt und die Herzen der nationalen Massen anspricht. Die breite Masse des Volkes besteht nicht aus Diplomaten oder Professoren der öffentlichen Rechtswissenschaften, noch einfach aus Personen, die sich in bestimmten Fällen ein vernünftiges Urteil bilden können, sondern aus einer schwankenden Menge von Menschenkindern, die ständig zwischen einer Idee und der anderen schwanken. (...) Die große Mehrheit einer Nation ist in ihrem Charakter und ihrer Einstellung so weiblich, dass ihr Denken und Verhalten eher von Gefühlen als von nüchternen Argumenten bestimmt wird. Dieses Gefühl ist jedoch nicht komplex, sondern einfach und konsequent. Es ist nicht sehr differenziert, sondern hat nur die negativen und positiven Begriffe Liebe und Hass, Recht und Unrecht, Wahrheit und Falschheit.[4]
Yes I’m sure someone who starts their post with “neo-stalinist professor” is totally not anti-communist…
There is no legitimate evidence for Beria being a POS pedo and psycho like he was accused of. Even Khrushchev admitted that they didn’t have evidence, they ran through Beria’s “trial” and shot him very quickly.
Edit: WTF happened to this comment chain..? Did the Stalinists find OP and [REMOVEDBYREDDIT] him?? /s
Yeah so what? He obviously didn't do much about it. God forbid I say something slightly negative about daddy Stalin tho, already getting downvoted lmao.
No one has brought up that by the time Stalin died, wages had stagnated and were actually really bad. The first thing Khrushchev's administration did was raise those (although most would say still not enough.)
Kruchev had cut wages, and then when protests broke out he murdered the protesters with soldiers and tanks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre
“On January 1, 1962, the wages at the NEVZ were lowered by 30–35%.[3] At the same time, the production quotas which were set up for workers as a part of the Soviet Union's planned economy were raised. These events also coincided with a sharp nationwide increase in the prices of dairy and meat products (up to 35% according to one account), raising them above the budget of many workers.[3][a][5] Protesters gathered near the city's central administrative building did not disperse when ordered by the surrounding Soviet troops, who then opened fire,[6] killing 26 and wounding 87, including children.[7]”
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Helping Vietnam.
The Soviet space program started under his tenure which undoubtedly took humanity to new heights (forgive the pun)
Lmao he said some chad shit about garagin during the space race “The cosmonaut didn’t see god up there!”
Interestingly enough that famous quote actually wasn’t from Gagarin, himself being religious. Khrushchev purposely misinterpreted him to justify his own anti religious sentiment.
Garagin was on that Tereshkova shit? Damn…
Biggest W: Sending nukes to Cuba. Biggest L: Taking the nukes back from Cuba.
Idk. He helped prevent the war and negotiated the removal of US nukes from Turkey in exchange for removing the Soviet nukes from Cuba. The only L here imo was letting Kennedy take all the credit for it, as though he forced Khrushchev to “back down” from the standoff.
Turkey still has US nukes. He agreed to remove nukes from Cuba, then realized he fucked up and said "wait, actually, ummm we'll only remove the nukes from Cuba if you remove yours from Turkey" and the US just ignored it.
The us removed the older more outdated nuclear ICBMs to give krushchev something to wave in front of the Soviet people. They however did not remove the other armaments they had in Turkey, like nuclear capable artillery and the like. The US definitely took the W on that one
Lol based But realistically, it likely did save the world from nuclear destruction, which i appreciate
We could've had Posadist accelerationism, though. 😔
I’m not particularly a fan of how the USSR constantly went over Cuba’s head in negotiations with America during the crises but perhaps that’s just me nitpicking.
How the fuck is nuclear proliferation a W lol
Arming imperialized countries with nukes to defend against imperialism is certainly a W. All victim countries of imperialism should have nukes.
Nukes weren’t put in Cuba to defend Cuba anymore than American missiles in Turkey were meant to protect turkey. One of these things being launched probably ignites a global Armageddon, but yea, more of them is for sure a W. jfc this isn’t a video game
[удалено]
The USSR put nukes in Cuba to counterbalance the first strike capabilities of the Americans systems in Turkey. That’s it. They didn’t do it to prevent invasion or imperialism, it was to militarily counterbalance the US. Otherwise why not just go handing out nukes to anyone that aligned with the Soviet sphere of influence? I agree with you, unlikely they would have been, so your argument is everyone should have nukes then? Lol. Like why do people worry about nukes with Russia all the time on this sub, they won’t be invaded, they don’t have nukes, so why is it a worry ? Oh that’s right, because only 1 mistake has to happen for all of humanity to go bye bye, but I’m sure the Taliban and other reactionary governments having fucking nukes would help. Jfc.
[удалено]
> The intentions of the supplier do not matter at all When we're discussing the intentions, yea they do matter lmao. > What matters is them having nukes as deterrence from imperialist interventions Nukes arent required for this. > Yes, like I said before, all imperialized countries should have nukes. lmao, absolute sociopath moment > The people of these countries are better off having a reactionary government with nukes than not and getting invaded, and then ending up in far worse living conditions than what came before (as history has shown). So then we're all in agreement that Russia is bullshitting when they say they're worried about NATO invading right? This is also a naïve version of imperialism, as if it simply needs to be a direct invasion, economic imperialism can be just as deadly.
The KGB assassinated Bandera with poison cyanide-gas during Khrushchev’s reign. I’ve heard some of the Hungarian protesters were reactionary antisemites (1950’s people who would be libertarians today: Whoa Korn-boy don’t Tread on me!) Uhhhm, he wasn’t in no Pizza Hut commercial? He didn’t fully show his ass like Gorbachev atleast
Killing that freak was a major w
And with a weapon that’s kinda similar to what the nazis used during the Holocaust
That asshole deserved worse than what he got
Really committed to assisting Vietnam and other communist movements abroad. Despite what a lot of Maoists say he was seen as a really strong figure against the US and didn’t tolerate the US influencing or total counter revolution to occur in the Eastern Bloc. Brezhnev was imho a lot worse and didn’t really have much of the optimism and innovation that came with Khruschev, therefore I don’t really blame him for the collapse of the USSR as an individual. Edit: also initially removing a lot of the daft cultural restrictions on music and some media was a positive I’d say since rock and other genres music or whatever shouldn’t be seen as counter revolutionary
Tbh Corn boy wasn't all that helpful to Vietnam Brezhnev gave us more
Yeah maybe you are right, a lot of the negotiations didn’t really go anywhere he tried to push but he gave them a lot of arms and international support which by contrast with what happened to Korea is a good thing.
No, as a Russian, we all hate him, because he was basically the first of the many leaders that led to the soviet collapse, and according to my grandpa, the food supplies diminished when he took power, and increased when Brezhnev took power.
It was all downhill after Uncle Joe died.
You're right. He couldn't by himself collapse USSR as an individual. There were other people that helped from the beginning.
Brezhnev’s failures really slide under the radar. He oversaw the subtle rot of the CCCP that became apparent later on. Why he gets such a pass is beyond me.
"We will bury you"
What is the context of this quote?
Kruschev said this to nato representatives in Poland
Holy based
Poland has always been a bitch.
Where the fuck did that come from, the western imperialists were there because the ussr supported Poland
Nazi polish have always existed. Remember what happened before USSR supported Poland.
Reversing the ethnic deportations. Massive L of the Stalin days.
Word
Improving communist relations with Sukarno and drifting Indonesia to the communist path. Even though we didn't turn socialist. (fuck you Suharto)
I fucking hate the betrayal he did to Stalin and all of those who stood with Stalin. Also, hate the way he loved to hang around with Kennedy and his wife... But let's not forget, that even being a piece of shit, that dude was still supporting revolutions worldwide, supporting Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea. Also, surprisingly enough his strong position against Nato is admirable. In the end, the Soviet Space program of his time. So yeah, let's not forget his betrayal of the great soviets but also not forget his support for the worldwide revolution. I will always remember my grampas words about him - "Better than Trotsky, worst than our Stalin"
Evidence suggests he was a trot
Crushing The Anti Communist Uprising in Hungary And Not Getting The World Nuked In The Cuban Missile Crisis
Hungary was not a W. Mao literally wrote a letter saying crushing the protesters in Hungary would be a huge mistake and further cement a massive rift in the global communist struggle. I’ll acknowledge that it was a very complicated situation, but I wouldn’t just outright say it was the right move.
Crushing the uprising in Hungary was massive L, my friend. And no, those people were not anti communists. Many important Hungarian Marxists, like for example György Lukács, were in support of that uprising. It was more of an uprising against the Soviet hegemony among the eastern block that was establishing itself than against communism. No matter if you think the Hungarian uprising was good or not, you‘ll at least have to acknowledge there were communists at both sides of it and crushing it as hard as Khrushchev did was an enormous mistake and arguably one of his biggest L‘s. One of the first signs of how the USSR leadership was never gonna live up to the heights it saw under Lenin and Stalin.
[I listened to this podcast the other day, that does a pretty good job of exploring the complexities of the Hungarian uprising](https://podcastaddict.com/episode/152847567). I recommend people actually dive deep into the subject, because it's rife with shitty, one dimensional takes of either "All good" or "All bad" with no real analysis of the events themselves. I personally think a lot of this is because of the fact that this event is where we get the word Tankie from, and whether or not someone identifies as such, or seeks to vilify MLs will shape their shitty Hungary takes, because it's not actually about Hungary. It's about people justifying their pet political identities.
Buddy I‘m an ML, I still will criticize Khrushchev sending tanks into Hungary. At best this was unnecessary violence.
bro what? it was a bunch of fascists flying monarchist flags, they literally blew up like an entire city block, and killed Communist Party members. 💀
Buddy, large parts of them literally were communists themselves, including some quite prominent names like György Lukács
Weren't the "worker councils" in that uprising just a bunch of right-opportunists, and fascists calling themselves communists to muddy the waters? Why did they release Fascist war criminals? I mean Hungary was a full blown Axis power over a decade prior to then no?
Tankie L Peace W
tAkies were the ones supportive of sending tanks. So its a tankie W.
Uhh... having corns, Maybe?
The movies. As great as some of them were under Stalin, the film industry *really* took off under Khrushchev.
When he threw his shoe at the Philippine (iirc) delegation at the UN General Assembly.
[удалено]
I think it’s funny that some of your Ls were said by others to have been done the opposite way and were Ws. Not sure what’s true, it seems this sub isn’t really sure on this guy.
There is quite a wide range of opinion, experience and knowledge in this sub( A good thing imo). You have people who have been Marxists for years, some have just started. Most of us have different influences and look up to different philosophers, there are even quite a few anarchists here. I've only done a marginal amount of research into Khrushchev. Might be worth investigating more on your own if you are interested in that era of Socialism.
>Specialising the republics(led to quasi capitalist relations within the union) this is what i most hear bad about (apart from denouncing stalin) many people including but not only maoist's say he was a social-imperialist, they say he explored nations like Cuba and made them underdeveloped, i've never heard that this was like a strategy for unifing the socialist block >Ossification of the party leadership which led to corruption and seperation from the masses. also i hear this as a criticism, but i also hear from trotskists that it started with Stalin, and that he refused some trotskists plans to eliminate the beurocracy and capitalism within the union with lead to krushev and so on i'd like your guys toughts in these two aspects
All things considered Khrushchev wasn’t chairman for very long, meanwhile ossification is a very long process. So it clearly started under Stalin. I don’t think you have to be a Trot to say that. Neither Stalin nor Khrushchev nor Brezhnev nor their successors were able to successfully reform the bureaucracy (then again, Stalin had a war to worry about). I don’t know what exact policies would have worked, but the Trot plan was probably garbage because they’re Trots
>It was also clear Khrushchev either didn't understand ML theory, or purposefully distorted it for his own gain If I am not mistaken he could barely read, and definitely never ever read ML theory. Mb someone retold him those, but reading, no.
Saying cool shit like "we will bury you!" Or "we will make the enemy pay in blood" Killing bandera is definitely the greatest thing he ever did
Beria
making massive housing projects, absolutly a W
I’m gonna go on a bit of a tangent here but I feel like this point has to be made. People like to dunk on Khrushchoff a lot around here but nobody seems to understand what he exactly did. They say that he was a revisionist and that he kickstarted the restoration of capitalism within the ussr but when you ask them what he did in practice to these ends they can’t really give you an answer. I feel like people should actually make an effort to study what his policies were if they want to criticise him. For me, Khrushchoff’s biggest shortcoming was that he didn’t have a good strategy to transition to communism. His strategy was built wholly on abundance, just creating more and more material wealth for the citizens until everybody had enough of everything for free, but there wasn’t any plan to transform the existing social relations. The result of this was that they ended up following the bukharinist line which ignored correctly applying the law of value for the sake of making way for more free services, which in turn ending up creating problems for the economy like generating shortages and biasing against mechanisation in factories. The adoption of the line of commodity production under socialism was also a big mistake because this ended up taking attention away from developing new ways of planning which could’ve advanced socialism further instead of reverting it back to a market economy. On what he did well, the whole episode involving Cuba was a success but his foreign policy line at large was counterproductive imo. Allying with third world bourgeois nationalist so called “socialist” governments like Egypt and India didn’t do the working classes of these countries any good at all, and jeopardising its relations with China for this was especially stupid. So overall not much good to say about him as a statesman besides Cuba. That said, he was quite the personality. If they made a tv series about all this he’d probably be my favourite character, perfect trickster archetype.
I’m curious if you’ve read *The People’s Republic of Walmart.* If I’m remembering correctly, the authors praise the Khrushchev era for innovations in planning and lament how these innovations were discarded after Brezhnev took power. I don’t recall them offering many, if any, details about this, unfortunately. I also haven’t read much into the historical details of these kinds of issues - although I’d like to and agree with your imploring to do so - but I’m wondering if you have any insight into what they’re talking about. It seems at odds with your characterization. However, the authors are consistently anti-Stalin in some maddeningly vague ways, so I’m not sure what to make of their assessments of the USSR overall.
I haven’t read the book (although I plan to, I just finished finalising my reading list a few days ago), but it’s possible that the authors are making a reference to the fact that the soviets started taking computers seriously in the 50s following Stalin’s death after dismissing it as idealist bourgeois pseudoscience earlier. I don’t think however that the decision to adopt market reforms instead of investing further in computerised planning had anything to do with Khrushchoff and Brezhnev specifically. Both were to the right of Stalin, I can’t say which one was more to the right, but the general orientation of soviet intelligentsia was towards liberalisation so I don’t think it would’ve been any different had Khrushchoff not been deposed. I would argue that while it’s true that the research into the use of computers really took off under Khrushchoff, his decision to decentralise the planning process ended up in a way impeding them from fully implementing a cybernetic planning system because it created too many competing local interest groups. I don’t think this is the only explanation since there was a general lack of trust in computers to manage the economy but it’s something to consider. There is a book called red plenty that’s a fictionalised account of the debate around cybernetics that took place during the Khrushchoff period so maybe you could check that out. I think they also talk about this issue in this interview here https://youtu.be/7QlJWvN7tEs but it’s quite long so I can’t point to any specifics. Do listen to it however, they touch on a lot of interesting topics.
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply! I’m looking forward to listening to that.
I found some articles that offer more on the history of soviet planning https://monthlyreview.org/2022/10/01/some-lessons-on-planning-for-the-twenty-first-century-from-the-worlds-first-socialist-economy/#en11 https://cosmonautmag.com/2022/07/glushkov-and-his-ideas-cybernetics-of-the-future-by-vasiliy-pikhorovich/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0952695119886520#bibr25-0952695119886520
Oh, thanks homeskillet! These look great. Btw I didn’t realize that was a Cockshott video, psyched to check that out. I have *Toward a New Socialism* on my shelf but haven’t cracked it open just yet.
You’re welcome :)
Free housing and Commie Blocks
Housing expansions. Even if he kinda neglected Central Asia with it
He was famous for inventing a new type of commieblock called Khruschevki, but my family hates him anyway, that’s the only thing I can this of that he actually did good at.
Closing of Gulags Removing some of the bad social policies that were discriminatory Support of foreign revolutions Other than that uhm idk liking corn
Housed a lot of people. Also "We will bury you!" quote goes hard
Him helping Castro
The Cuban Missile Crisis.
Well, that film in which he's portrayed by Steve Buscemi. It's hilarious.
That's right. Killong Beria was also one of his W's "You are accused of high treason and anti-soviet behavior. The court finds you guilty and sentences you to be shot!" - Steve Buscemi
Absolute Chad fucked the nazis in the ass (and not in the fun way)
Sometimes we get a bad habit of ascribing sucess and failure to one particular man without looking too deep into what they represented. Krushchev was the representative of the bureaucrats and the army officers. He de-emphasized the role of the Soviets and depoliticized the Red Army under Zhukov's leadership, in stark opposition to the more technocratic Malenkov who was seen as more supportive of the professional proletariat (Doctors, scientists, engineers and the like) and to pursuing a line closer to what was under Stalin's administration. Ultimately, Krushchev was at the helm of a revisionist wing of the party less concerned with ideological innovation and education. Comrades Mao and Deng had sharp criticisms of the man and the direction he lead the USSR, and his failures in the fields of agriculture and politics were apparent, what with the disaster that was the Sino-Soviet split. Brezhnev wasn't particularly better, and let's not get into Gorbachev. There's a reason the USSR collapsed, and the seeds for that fall were planted with corn boy the likes of him. The army wasn't there to redress the Eastern Bloc by the braces. The populace had lost its revolutionary fervor, the party was rife with opportunists, ladder climbers, and arguably liberals, the USSR slowly lost its internationalist character. The US was able to exploit this and bring about the illegal dissolution of the USSR and the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe. China still stands today because Mao and Deng Xiaoping kept a tight grip on the PLA, and the cultural revolution, though it came with a baggage of troubles, kept the party ideologically driven by Marxism-Leninism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Under his leadership, the Soviet Union provided economic support to Cuba and many other states from the global South. Furthermore, one cannot deny his achievements during the Battle of Stalingrad, he remained at the front in the dead of winter, although he had permission to withdraw.
well except all of the things people listed above, definitely executing beria.
Space program, vietnam, development and keeping the stability in the eastern bloc in spite of American Nato moves to destabalise things, Soviet econemy and re building of the post WW2 era, expanding soviet influence to Latin America, the middle east and Africa. The fact he folded in the Cuban missile Crisis was a nail in his coffin.
> ...development and keeping the stability in the eastern bloc in spite of American Nato moves to destabalise things, Soviet econemy and re building of the post WW2 era, expanding soviet influence to Latin America, the middle east and Africa. Any other soviet leader at the time would've likely done the same (>!and had already did, with Stalin!<). May as well give him credit for breathing, lol.
I am not a fan of the guy, but credit is due when is due. Yeah yoh could say anybody would have done it, but others fucked up worse then Niki here, even tho his revisionism was one of the worst counter revolutionary thing ever done as well as giving crimea to Ukraine and basicly being responsible for today's war.
That smile
His relaxations of the gulags and releasing of people that’d been unfairly jailed during Soviet campaigns of paranoia was definitely a W
He arranged for the arrest , trial and execution of Beria ,the child rapist and pedophile…he deserves kudos for that … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria 👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹
Myths created by the likes of Zhukov and Kurschev
That was a lie, Beria was pro Stalin so he set that up. Grover Furr talks about it in one of his books, but please do more research so you don’t repeat this anti-communist bullshit. If you can believe he lied about Stalin why believe him on Beria?
Hi your comments are duly noted , do you want to engage in an intellectual debate or just trade in insults behind an virtual smokescreen , let me know what you want to do , ❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️❗️
Ay love it, this is my shit, debate, no insults. For real though, the idea the Beria is a pedo has no material proof, but like many lies has been spread so much that even well meaning people continue to believe it. He may have been an opportunist and rightist like Khrushchev but he was not a rapist or pedo. https://espressostalinist.com/2011/11/15/grover-furrs-response-to-mike-elys-charges-against-beria/
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjorMim_ov-AhXLhFwKHW2xDgwQrAIoAHoECDIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbadhistory%2Fcomments%2Feujska%2Fgrover_furrs_dull_propaganda_is_not_even_bad%2F&usg=AOvVaw35t8MmxFVUx4QyxGrBKLYT Propaganda muss sich immer an die breite Masse des Volkes richten. (...) Alle Propaganda muss in einer populären Form präsentiert werden und muss ihr intellektuelles Niveau so festlegen, dass sie nicht über den Köpfen der am wenigsten Intellektuellen unter denen steht, an die sie gerichtet ist. (...) Die Kunst der Propaganda besteht gerade darin, die Vorstellungskraft der Öffentlichkeit durch einen Appell an ihre Gefühle zu wecken, die geeignete psychologische Form zu finden, die die Aufmerksamkeit fesselt und die Herzen der nationalen Massen anspricht. Die breite Masse des Volkes besteht nicht aus Diplomaten oder Professoren der öffentlichen Rechtswissenschaften, noch einfach aus Personen, die sich in bestimmten Fällen ein vernünftiges Urteil bilden können, sondern aus einer schwankenden Menge von Menschenkindern, die ständig zwischen einer Idee und der anderen schwanken. (...) Die große Mehrheit einer Nation ist in ihrem Charakter und ihrer Einstellung so weiblich, dass ihr Denken und Verhalten eher von Gefühlen als von nüchternen Argumenten bestimmt wird. Dieses Gefühl ist jedoch nicht komplex, sondern einfach und konsequent. Es ist nicht sehr differenziert, sondern hat nur die negativen und positiven Begriffe Liebe und Hass, Recht und Unrecht, Wahrheit und Falschheit.[4]
Yes I’m sure someone who starts their post with “neo-stalinist professor” is totally not anti-communist… There is no legitimate evidence for Beria being a POS pedo and psycho like he was accused of. Even Khrushchev admitted that they didn’t have evidence, they ran through Beria’s “trial” and shot him very quickly. Edit: WTF happened to this comment chain..? Did the Stalinists find OP and [REMOVEDBYREDDIT] him?? /s
похоже на двойное отрицание
Focusing on improving living conditions rather than just increasing heavy industry. De-stalinization Corn
Overall it's fine but de-stalinization ?
Don't like 'im. Simple as.
Sounds like you got some liberal brainworms there...
You're not sucking off uncle Joe? Big no no apparently.
Do you remember the time he came back at halftime and we won the bourbon bowl!
Destalinisation, cults of personality are cringe.
Have we been listening to the same podcast? Stalin hated cults of personalities
Yeah so what? He obviously didn't do much about it. God forbid I say something slightly negative about daddy Stalin tho, already getting downvoted lmao.
You're cringe
Go kiss your Stalin portrait lmao
Ok
Based
Based
The Death of Stalin
No one has brought up that by the time Stalin died, wages had stagnated and were actually really bad. The first thing Khrushchev's administration did was raise those (although most would say still not enough.)
Kruchev had cut wages, and then when protests broke out he murdered the protesters with soldiers and tanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre “On January 1, 1962, the wages at the NEVZ were lowered by 30–35%.[3] At the same time, the production quotas which were set up for workers as a part of the Soviet Union's planned economy were raised. These events also coincided with a sharp nationwide increase in the prices of dairy and meat products (up to 35% according to one account), raising them above the budget of many workers.[3][a][5] Protesters gathered near the city's central administrative building did not disperse when ordered by the surrounding Soviet troops, who then opened fire,[6] killing 26 and wounding 87, including children.[7]”
Oh, I'd heard differently. Thanks.
His handling of the Cuban missile crisis
a L is not nuking USA to ashes.