What do you guys make of Nikkita Khruschev - liberator or revisionist?

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 22 2014 06:12
What do you guys make of Nikkita Khruschev - liberator or revisionist?

OK, I know most of you guys here aren't too enamored with the old SU, but pretty sure there are one or two Marxists lurking here.

So, why does Khrushchev get bashed so often, and labelled as a revisionist?

The way I read it, he tried to keep the communist dream alive by allowing some freedom for the people but whilst still keeping the bourgeoisie at bay.

Revisionist, how so?

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Jun 22 2014 07:31

Definitely a revisionist. Mao Zedong Thought is the only logical extension of Marxism-Leninism.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jun 22 2014 08:11

a revisionist inside revisionism

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 22 2014 09:41

Oh, do tell us more, Stalinski.

Ablokeimet
Offline
Joined: 30-04-13
Jun 22 2014 12:16

Back in the 1980s, I read a book by a French Stalinist whose name escapes me. It was called "The Stalin Phenomenon"* and gave me much valuable information about the USSR under Stalin.

The most important thing I learnt was that Khrushchev acted to bring the Party back in control in the USSR. Stalin had set up a personal dictatorship which acted, not only in violation of the laws of the USSR, but also in violation of the Party's rules. For much of his time in charge, Stalin ruled not by discussions and votes on the Politburo, but by creating special commissions of himself and a handful of selected assistants.

One interesting fact in the book was the significance of the 1934 Party Congress. The author contends that, despite the fact that the resolutions all praised Stalin to the skies, their substantive content was aimed at tying him down and forcing him to allow Party processes to function. Stalin reacted by ensuring that virtually all participants in the 1934 Congress were executed. Most were gone by 1938, while most of the remainder went during the War.

The reason Khrushchev acted to put the Party back in control was that Stalin's personal dictatorship was physically dangerous to Party members - and the higher you were in the Party, the more danger you were in. His style of rule depended on the perpetual creation of enemies and, at the end of his life, he was cooking up one final campaign around the "Doctors' Plot", which the author alleges was designed to take out half the Politburo.

Khrushchev gets attacked as a revisionist for a number of reasons. The fundamental reason the Chinese "Communist" Party attacks him is that he was attempting to control the policy direction of the Chinese Party in ways that Mao particularly resisted. He was also more conciliatory on foreign policy than Beijing wanted at the time, since his focus was on fostering the economic development of the USSR. He announced the ambition to "overtake and surpass the USA" economically. Finally, he fell after attempting to implement economic reforms which were intended to increase growth and solve problems that were starting to appear in the system. These reforms would have jeopardised the power of wide sections of the Party bureaucracy, so the bureaucracy dumped him.

The irony is that Khrushchev's success in establishing the rule of the Party bureaucracy in place of the personal dictatorship of the Secretary was what brought him undone politically. When he showed he was intent on a path that would undermine the power of the bureaucrats, they dumped him. This was something that could not have been done if he was ruling with Stalin's methods.

None of this means that Khrushchev was a good guy. As the workers of Hungary could attest, while he was not as bad as Stalin, he was pretty bloody brutal himself.

And as a final note, I'd like to comment on the Party after the fall of Khrushchev. Stalin's paranoid search for enemies had ceased, and with it his wild swings in foreign policy. Under Khrushchev, the Party had concentrated on economic growth, but had come up against the contradiction between its rule and the needs of the economy. By dumping him, the Party had abandoned the ambition to overtake the US economically. It was therefore left with no higher purpose, no reason to rule other than for its own benefit. And therefore, it was under Brezhnev that corruption really got into high gear. Although, by ousting Khrushchev, the Party had returned towards theoretical orthodoxy, it had done so as a completely cynical exercise. Up until Khrushchev, it was possible tor a Party member to believe that, despite everything, the Party had a higher mission it was fulfilling. From Brezhnev onwards, the Party existed only for itself.

* A search with a Famous Web Search Engine turns up many books and essays called "The Stalin Phenomenon", so I'm still none the wiser about the author.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Jun 22 2014 13:32

Who cares whether he's a revisionist, he's some damn fine piece of eye-candy.

*rubs knees

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 22 2014 17:19

Stalinski seems like a troll, but sadly it's possible he's serious. From what I know, many real tankies are really that clueless. They're like little gullible kids for whom everything is new... And like them they're illiterate (especially when it comes to Marx).

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 22 2014 17:23

BTW what do you Trotskyite/leftcom/anarchist scum make of Pol Pot?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jun 22 2014 20:02

Gepetto #8

I liked mine and kept it under the bed, though my mum never called it 'pol', it was always her 'chanty pot'. Does this answer the question?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 22 2014 20:10

Stalinski

I have really limited access to the internet atm, and therefore don't want to spend it arguing the toss but you are bewildering me. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll, I can only assume that you really don't know very much about anarchism, in which case coming to forums is not the best way to find out. These are forums, and as Boomerang said on another thread, they're not places where I come to give people 101/basic principles. What you call communism and what we call communism is massively different in many aspects and unless know these differences any answers you get are not going to be understood within the parameters of your own understanding. (Yeah, I know that didn't make much sense but I'm doing this on the fly.)

But anarchism being anarchism, there is a shit-ton of stuff written on it, including on this site, which will help you get up to speed on where we are coming from.

Try this
http://libcom.org/library/colin-ward-anarchism-very-short-introduction

for something really short. I have to say I haven't read this one myself but I find the Very Short Introduction books very useful for when I know very little about a subject and need a jumping off point.

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 22 2014 20:29

Stalinski, what is your opinion on World of Tanks? Worth playing or not?

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 02:42
Gepetto wrote:
BTW what do you Trotskyite/leftcom/anarchist scum make of Pol Pot?

Pol Pot was ok in theory, but he became to nationalistic, and attacking Vietnam was a poor move.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 02:43
Gepetto wrote:
Stalinski, what is your opinion on World of Tanks? Worth playing or not?

I prefer Game of Thrones actually, though it's tamer than people make out.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 23 2014 02:45
Fleur wrote:
Stalinski

But anarchism being anarchism, there is a shit-ton of stuff written on it, including on this site, which will help you get up to speed on where we are coming from.

for something really short. I have to say I haven't read this one myself but I find the Very Short Introduction books very useful for when I know very little about a subject and need a jumping off point.

I've read the book by that Nozic guy, 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', does that count?

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jun 23 2014 10:40
Stalinski wrote:

Pol Pot was ok in theory, but he became to nationalistic, and attacking Vietnam was a poor move.

really hard to reply to this crap but the only theoretical work published by the Khmer Rouge is Khieu Samphan's Cambodia's Economy and Industrial Development from 1959 which in inspired by the German 19th century bourgeois economist Friedrich List and which basically advocates a protectionist and nationalistic strategy of industrialization

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 23 2014 10:50

Pol Pot went full communism at once and didn't afraid of anything.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jun 23 2014 11:51

Gepetto #16

'Pol Pot went full communism...'

Don't you mean - went fool communism?

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 23 2014 11:59
Stalinski wrote:
Fleur wrote:
Stalinski

But anarchism being anarchism, there is a shit-ton of stuff written on it, including on this site, which will help you get up to speed on where we are coming from.

for something really short. I have to say I haven't read this one myself but I find the Very Short Introduction books very useful for when I know very little about a subject and need a jumping off point.

I've read the book by that Nozic guy, 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', does that count?

I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jun 23 2014 12:04

Oh FFS ! WHAt are you on? Not just Stalinist STALINSKIbut a wooden dummy's dad recommending "libertarian" texts!!!!!
A troll double act.

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 23 2014 12:15
Battlescarred wrote:
a wooden dummy's dad recommending "libertarian" texts!!!!

Who also is a tankie and endorses Pol Pot.

Of course it's not serious, this whole thread is a joke anyway. But I admit I got carried away with this shit too much.

Soapy's picture
Soapy
Offline
Joined: 30-05-10
Jun 23 2014 12:15
Ablokeimet
Offline
Joined: 30-04-13
Jun 23 2014 13:21
Gepetto wrote:
I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

Wow! I'd never heard of Evola before now. This guy is really something! To cut a long story short, he criticised Mussolini for being insufficiently Fascist. He recognised that the laws of science didn't support his theories, but thought it meant that science had the problem, not him.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jun 23 2014 13:30
Gepetto wrote:

I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

don't forget G.G. Allin, Nikolas Schreck and Conan the Barbarian

Gepetto's picture
Gepetto
Offline
Joined: 28-10-12
Jun 23 2014 13:35
Ablokeimet wrote:
Gepetto wrote:
I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

Wow! I'd never heard of Evola before now. This guy is really something! To cut a long story short, he criticised Mussolini for being insufficiently Fascist. He recognised that the laws of science didn't support his theories, but thought it meant that science had the problem, not him.

And there are people for whom Evola is more anarchist than "boring socialist bollocks from 19th century".

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jun 23 2014 15:01

Come on, Stalinski's "taking the piss" I think is the phrase in Britain. Don't feed the troll.

jonthom's picture
jonthom
Offline
Joined: 25-11-10
Jun 23 2014 16:45
Entdinglichung wrote:
Gepetto wrote:

I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

don't forget G.G. Allin, Nikolas Schreck and Conan the Barbarian

the next Internationale:

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jun 23 2014 20:36

FASCISKY!!!

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jun 23 2014 20:38

Everything sounds so much better with a -sky at the end.

COMMUNISTSKY

Its Stalinaky's major contribution to the art of political language.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:24
Entdinglichung wrote:
really hard to reply to this crap but the only theoretical work published by the Khmer Rouge is Khieu Samphan's Cambodia's Economy and Industrial Development from 1959 which in inspired by the German 19th century bourgeois economist Friedrich List and which basically advocates a protectionist and nationalistic strategy of industrialization

forget about the books - I'm saying he came back to Cambo, having spent time in France, and was then uttterly horrified by the peverse uber-bourgeois nature of his own country, and set about changing it. That was a brave act, though perhaps he could have implemented change more gradually.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:27
Gepetto wrote:
Stalinski wrote:
I've read the book by that Nozic guy, 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', does that count?

I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

Nietzsche is a good read I agree, but not so sure he's an anarchist.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jun 24 2014 08:14
Stalinski wrote:
Gepetto wrote:
Stalinski wrote:
I've read the book by that Nozic guy, 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', does that count?

I'd also recommend Carson, Rothbard, Southgate, Stirner, Nietzsche, Junger and Evola.

Nietzsche is a good read I agree, but not so sure he's an anarchist.

oh yeah: https://archive.org/stream/TheCompleteWorksOfFriedrichNietzschevol.17-Ec...