I know historical hindsight is 20/20, but how did no one bully this guy into giving up his moronic "de-stalinisation" policy? Like the SU was built by Stalin and now suddenly hes satan incarnate? No wonder SU citizens lost faith in the party over time, how can you trust a bunch of weather vanes?

  • HelltakerHomosexual [she/her, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Military support of Khrushchev allowed him to coup the government. He made up a bunch of bullshit, purged the last Bolsheviks, and then started fucking up the country. Khrushchev then did every thing he accused stalin of doing and centralized power, ignored the party, and just did whatever.

    The people did not like corn boy, and a huge amount opposed de-stalinization, but Khrushchev crushed these uprisings violently. Censored the press even more from socialist works, and allowed liberalism in more. Gromyko and other moderates supported this change because they're careerist fucking bastards.

    Stalin should have purged the soviet union again in 1950

      • HelltakerHomosexual [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        but but but muh free market

        the soviet union was too nice to the intelligensia, and at the same time too restrictive. They should allow critique but along socialist lines, but censor nationalism and reactionary tendencies.

        Stalin was too fuckin nice to the kulaks and religious class

        • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          What's frustrating was that it happened along racial lines, too, specifically favoring ethno-nationalism in the republics, and scapegoating ethnic minorities as "stateless cosmopolitans" to be removed in order to secure border regions- and allow for compliant ethnicities to take their place. it just allowed shitty people who were okay with going along with that to gain power and influence

    • anarcho_blinkenist [none/use name]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Khrushchev then did every thing he accused stalin of doing

      that was already the case. Khrushchev could accurately be called, even by anti-communists, "Stalin's hatchet-man" who went above and beyond what was asked of him (or wanted of him). Half of the shit that he threw in Stalin's lap ran through him first or he took active initiative in. Half of the people persecuted or shot in Ukraine leading up to and in the early days of the Nazi invasion were ran by and ordered by him. The original nationalist founders of the Plast scouting group of Ukraine (which produced Bandera and Shukhevych and varying other figures, as well as I'm sure also normal people) along with a couple other accused nationalists were shot before the evacuation in the face of the Barbarossa invasion and the order itself was via an NKVD telegram from Ukrainian and Belarusian NKVD addressed to and signed by Kruschev for permission. I recall also reading somewhere though don't remember where that Kruschev was one of the people most heavily pushing for Stalin statues and posters everywhere and cities to be renamed after Stalin all the time, while Stalin had been quoted numerous times to not deify or worship individuals, and to not compare him even to Lenin, etc.

      Makes you wonder how many of the nationalists and reactionaries Khrushchev let out of prison or exile as "victims of Stalin's paranoia" he himself sent in the first place.

      • HelltakerHomosexual [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        god i fucking hate corn boy, he fucked up almost everything he did. 1956 Hungary was only happening because of Khrushchev's forced 'destalinization' idiocy.

    • Dolores [love/loves]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Stalin should have purged the soviet union again in 1950

      looking at the evidence for a purge not catching the guy who turned out to be a problem: what if we tried again and the bad guy was even more in charge of the direction this purge could take? have we considered that maybe soviet purges were not best practices?

      • HelltakerHomosexual [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        nah, purges are a necessary thing. reactionaries and revisionists will always be entering the party, as seen with kruschev and gorbachev, so there must be ways to eliminate them if necessary. I dont think though that they need to be violent, just demotions or firing works plenty fine.

        if Khrushchev's allies were silenced before he could use them, then he wouldn't have been much of a problem anyway.

        • Dolores [love/loves]
          ·
          2 months ago

          I dont think though that they need to be violent

          i'm not criticising the idea of kicking people out of parties, i'm talking about the executions of innocent party members and military officers that was allowed to happen. without a structural change to the forms of party security and discipline, there is no reason to believe the same dysfunctional tool would be successful if applied again.