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.
Malenkov was Stalin's preferred choice, though after his death I really don't think his opinion should matter much. Khrushchev wouldn't have been that bad except for the fact that destalinization and the secret speech was completely moronic and self-serving. Khrushchev ardently purged plenty of people for Stalin then tried to blame it all on the scary big man after the fact, same goes for a lot of the CPSU who went along with destalinization. Engaging in that "historical nihilism" (in the words of the CPC) fundamentally rattled the proletarian and revolutionary credentials of the party domestically and cause a massive rift in the world communist movement that was completely avoidable.
In my opinion, it was definitely necessary to "loosen the bolts" on society after the years of war and purges. But trying to tear down Stalin for doing what the entire party agreed was necessary just so Khrushchev could get a cheap pop and marginalize his political rivals? Fuck you dude, maybe you and the rest of the CPSU should have grown a spine and removed him if Stalin was really that terrible.
No wonder the Soviet working class became disillusioned and apathetic, with opportunists like Khrushchev spitting on the past sacrifices they made for the party and fulfillment of the revolution.
Now compare them to China and the CPC, who actually did remove Mao from power once his policies caused economic disaster and political turmoil, but they still had enough sense not to attempt the trash the reputation of one of the heros of the revolution. They criticized his excesses and failures, but upheld the good, and remembered that his legacy was their legacy. They didn't let a dead man tear their political system apart and force themselves to act embarrassed whenever anyone brings up a massive part of their own history.
Carlos Martinez’ essay on the fall of the Soviet Union goes into more detail… but one thing he points out is many/most Soviet citizens didn’t really have much of an understanding of what “socialism” was and how it worked. What they DID know was that under Stalin their lives got a lot better materially. That material conditions increase was intertwined with Stalin personally and what they understood socialism to be. So by trying to tear down Stalin’s legacy, to many Soviet people this was the same as tearing down the legitimacy of socialism.
undefined> Now compare them to China and the CPC, who actually did remove Mao from power once his policies caused economic disaster and political turmoil, but they still had enough sense not to attempt the trash the reputation of one of the heros of the revolution. They criticized his excesses and failures, but upheld the good, and remembered that his legacy was their legacy. They didn't let a dead man tear their political system apart and force themselves to act embarrassed whenever anyone brings up a massive part of their own history.
China has learned a lot from the mistakes of the USSR. This is why Communism will win (provided humans don't go extinct) we learn from every mistake and every success.