A lot of leftists really seem to hate Khrushchev, it's like everyone points at him and says "and this is where it all went down hill". If you're a Khrushchev-stan in the comments show yourself because more than likely there isn't one. Lenin's the goat, Stalin's a problematic fav, but Khrushchev leaves the bland taste of cardboard in my mouth. The thing is, IDK who would really have been better? Zhukov might have been a good general but I can't say he would have been a good governor, like I said IDK. Please enlighten me oh wise hexbear with your years of theory under your girthy communism enjoyer belts.

    • meth_dragon [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      i think khrushchev was responsible for the sino soviet split beyond just the ideological revisionism

      1. deng had a fairly negative opinion of him from the fallaci interview

      2. cpc suddenly was not happy with its comprehensive sovietization direction only after khrushchev came into power

      3. china went into recession immediately after the split, GLF could be considered mao's attempt at an economic recovery

      4. can't really find any other reasons besides the oft stated accusations of revisionism and social imperialism

      5. judging from what it took for the cpc to seriously start to decouple from the US (trump's 2018 trade war), potential damage to material interests must have been massive for them to consider pivoting away from sovietization

      leads me to think that khrushchev reneged on or tried to renegotiate a bunch of stalin's aid/tech transfer deals that didn't go down well with the cpc and the ideological justifications came afterwards

    • DADDYCHILL [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Khrushchev would have been a Gorbachev had the Soviet Union not been riding the high of beating the nazis.

        • Fuckass
          ·
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
      ·
      1 year ago

      through his support of Cuba, Vietnam, Egypt etc.

      That was just Realpolitik, though. Khrushchev wasn't backing Cuba because he was a huge fan of Che and Fidel. He was backing Cuba because Eisenhower had just moved Jupiter Missiles into Turkey and this was the tit-for-tat counter-move. Similarly, control of the Suez Canal was incredibly important for trafficking out of the Black Sea. Support for Egypt was paramount to Soviet international trade relations.

      Vietnam was, similarly, a central player in Pacific sea trade for the Soviets, following the Sino-Soviet split. Incidentally, I'd argue that set the entire Communist project back a solid 50 years. A united Russia/China might have produced the kind of sustained economic development that dwarfed the West inside another generation. But they fumbled the bag.