I shall go first. Nikita Khrushchev exposed the crimes of Stalinism and in so doing attempted to rebuild a more humane and libertarian USSR, as envisioned by Lenin himself.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Other urls found in this thread:,_1956–1962

Oh fuck off.

What happened in reality:
Nikita Khrushchev exposed the "crimes" of Stalinism and attempted to rebuild a more humane and libertarian USSR. By doing so, he allowed for literal cunts to use the soviet communist party to climb the social ladder, like Putin, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.


Dismantling the cult of personality around Stalin, rehabilitating people who were convicted of crimes they didn't commit and just generally trying to rein in the excesses of the Stalin era was of course a good thing.

The argument against him though is usually that he used those things to also push right wing economic policies, bureaucratization, pushing a reformist line on communist parties around the world, peaceful coexistance with capitalism, etc. I don't know enough specifics to really have a strong opinion on him but I would definitely not say he was flawless.

The space shit was cool though I guess.


Holla Forums BO, xe only banned the red liberals and Holla Forumsacks.

Yeah no fuck that revisionist. Anyone who panders to liberals is not a comrade.

There is literally nothing wrong with a cult of personality if the person that the cult is built around is dead. Read Hobbes.



Aah, to be a party boss in the Ukraine…


literally fucking nothing
bring back the Lenin boys

whoops forgot the shitposting flag

Of course a christfag says this

lol, kruscev did literally everything wrong


go away ismail


The Irish

lmao, is this Ismail?

I have reasons to believe Charlie Manson was in fact NAZBOL

I've literally never heard a Stalinist explain how Khrushchev's policies were substantially different than Stalin's.

Like, I can understand why Maoists hate Deng. Deng completely undid some of Mao's major policies.

All Khrushchev did was get rid of the concentration camps and phase out some of the "Dear Leader" symbolism, both of which are to be completely expected in a transfer of leadership.

An interesting thing I've noticed is that there are ML's who think Khrushchev was a horrible revisionist but also think modern China is a socialist country and love Xi Jinping. It's fucking wild.

There're idiots in every camp. But basically, Khrushchev started USSR on the path towards decentralization and market socialism, and other "right-wing of socialism" bullshit.,_1956–1962

He pretty much abandoned everything Stalin laid out in his Economic Problems work, while other socialist countries - like Albania and the DPRK - went through with it, successfully.

I don't think Marxist-Leninists would complain about increased cultural liberties or increased computerizations of the economy - Krushchev was a Marxist, but a very misguided one. Increased cybernetics and heuristics were good, but increased independence of firms in the face of the law of value was rather bad.

Didn't mean to bash all MLs or anything. ML/MLM is the tendency I'm most sympathetic to, but it undeniably attracts a lot of edgy LARPing retards.

What do you think the solution should have been? While the piece-rate system was a significant improvement over non-financial incentives, it still had obvious problems that needed to be corrected, not the least of which being that it had begun to create relatively severe income stratification among the workers.

Here is my stance:

1) I do think production occurred not in accordance with the law of value under what is known as "Stalinism".

2.) I think giving enterprises more managerial freedoms as long as the law of value exists is undermining socialism

The solution should have been a synthesis of cybernetic progressivism and central planning - taking the GDR as an example, there was a valid pioneer spirit regarding cybernetic automaitzation and systematic hermeneutics, the problem was that it was combined with liberal economic policies. The task for us communists is to manage to combine the forces of worker ownership and value-abolition into one entitity the next time.

Remember that pay occurred along the lines of productivity and not profitability. I do not see this in conflict with Marx's assessment of rationing in "Critique of the Gotha Program" - however, I think more prevalent is the criticism of "labor hoarding" that Cockshott makes. Have you read that?

Okay, what are peoples' thoughts on Goulash Communism and Kosygin's reforms here?

Based BO

Doing this by liberalizing the government and policy of the USSR is one step forward and two steps back.

I've yet to see anyone be concerned for the costs of living in USSR, and adjusting plans accordingly.

>dependency on overtime

Every time I read about it, it's a system imposed from the top down, that people have to adjust to, rather than built around people themselves from the bottom up, and then given direction.