Any khrushchevites on the board? He seemed pretty based

Then he could've just not killed people. He set up a new system because he hates Stalins and it was worse than what Stalin has set up.

He's not horrible but there's nothing based about him. If you like market socialism without mass murder, Tito is much better. He's not a significant leftist by any means and he arguably started the process of introducing capitalism back into the USSR.

Sources?

Sources?

I'm on my phone so I can't pull stuff up but feel free to look up what he did and the growth under him compared to Stalin.

He decentralized(without democratic control of the work place mind you) and Titoism is generally considered to be a superior version of Kruschevism.

Stalin stopped the USSR from falling apart in the 30's. If Kruschev had done the same for the Union and not handed it off to Gorbachev to be dismantled then he would be worthy of respect. He didn't and there are many superior leftist to look up to.

Decentralization =/= market.

he was gei

There were several general secretaries between Khrushchev and Gorbachev.

He put the reforms in place or Gorbachev to do what he did.

Anyway, why do you like him over Tito?

I don't. Was just curious.

Honestly, I would love to know more about this Nikita guy, but everything I heard about him so far sounds awful or at max bittersweet.

If one thing should unite the board in consensus, from anarkiddies to tankies, stalinfags to trotskybitches, it's that Khrushchev was a poo

He liberalized the soviet union, helped relations with the west, and embraced the soviet space program.

Is this before or after the Cuban Missle Crisis

He was amazingly incompetent at anything other than slander since the Civil War. They lost Poland because of him. The famine happened because of how effective he was in attacking the Kulaks, which in turn only grew strong enough to be able to cause such mayhem because of his effective pro-trade, pro-private property policies in the mid to late 20's. And "competence" is hardly what comes to mind when you think of his conduct during WW2.

Fuckin lol if someone like Stalin were in office during the cuban missile crisis we would be living in full posadism now.

ok. now tell me something good about him

He was competent at industrializing, however I have to agree. WW2 conduct was retarded

>>>/gulag/

We could have had space-gulags by now…

Was pretty bad by Soviet standards but actually pretty good by russian standards.

...

Stalin during the second world War was awful in 41 and early 42 but after that he was a pretty damn good supreme commander he learned from his mistakes and actively surrounded himself with the finest commanders of the war probably having the best senior commanders in the world by 45
His knowledge and focus on logistics were fucking genuis level to the point that the red army rare lying if ever slowed it's momentum once they got going. His decisions on equipment were great and his resolve kept the country from fracturing into mini states after he recovered from the initial shock.

Pray tell me, how exactly was he awful?

People like to say that Stalin was dumb for ordering southern armies to dig down and not retreat from Kiev (which got those armies annihilated in the end). But it is exactly this that forced Hitler to send Guderian and his tanks to the Ukraine, weakening the primary direction of attack - Moscow.

The very action that is being called as the fatal mistake of Reich that would doom them, for losing battle of Moscow meant losing the Blitzkrieg and turning war into a slugfest.

he fucked everything stalin achieved (minus space program) and implemented profit based production rather than quota, allowing factory managers to sell extra stock and products and become rich off them, making way for a soviet bourgeoisie and the eventually warming up with the west and the collapse under gorbachev.
he makes drunkard brezhnev look good for doing nothing

IIRC it was Brezhnev who run space program (Sputnik/Gagarin) at the time of Khrushchev.

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, he introduced competition between different branches of economy (and state enterprises), but not this. That was Gorbachev, no?

Well for one thing he locked himself in his room and wouldn't come out for days when he heard that the invasion had happened.

Just when you thought this board couldn't get any worse.

That's a myth.

It was 2 days (June 29-30 - the only days when he didn't have any meetings in Kremlin) and during the first day he was visiting People's Commissariat of Defence (when he was quite rudely told that he has no military post and no power in decision-making) and during second day he had a secret meeting with heads of USSR at his home to create the State Defence Committee that would be in command of the military.

I.e. when "he locked himself in his room and wouldn't come out for days" - are the two days when he was basically organizing a coup that would put army under his control.

SU dead.
Revolution is dead.
There is no point for this.
None of this matters anymore.

Also iirc Stalin was actually prepared to resign from leadership after news came of the Nazi invasion. For all the totalitarian talk I hear, this guy was pretty damn humble.

There were several times he offered to (at the very least in 20s, and in 50s), but I don't think he did it at the start of the war. That would be counterproductive.

Much more importantly, there was no Party Congress going that could accept his resignation.

At no point in the USSR's history was there ever an absence of capitalism.

...

Please point to where production operated under the guise of profit in the USSR. Then point to the "class" that expropriated this profit.

Not memes, simple fact. State capitalism was what Lenin was aiming for to industrialize the country before transitioning the socialism, state capitalism is what in his own words he said had been achieved just before he died. Stalin is the traitor that claimed they had finally achieved socialism when it wasn't anything of the sort.

What is socialism to you in the first place?

Please point to where the workers owned the means of production. Outside the collectivized farms early on, the Soviet Union merely replaced the private capitalists with government bureaucrats, re-establishing the very same class conflict. They did not eliminate the distinction between surplus value creators and surplus value appropriators.

Burocrats!=Capitalists
Every means of production were public(under Stalin at least), and it's profits were used for the benefice of the workers and workers only, there was no capitalist class that ripped the profits.
Co-ops are a good step for socialism, but they still are no public property and if think that co-ops are the end all be all you need to read a lot yet.

I am aware that the workers did not independently possess the means of production. For that reason I abstain from saying the USSR was "socialism proper." However, this is not to say that production wasn't still directed towards the use-value of the product - that is, towards the interest of the proletariat.

The idea that the bureaucrats formed a class is unfounded. From what rank of people did these bureaucrats come? Whose interest did they serve? Also, class is inherited in the same way as private property is handed down in capitalist society (as the two go hand-in-hand). Did the sons and daughters of these bureaucrats take their offices after their deaths?

Every one owned it, but they used the plan as guide line for production(again at least under Stalin).

Marxian classes aren't defined by solidarity, they're defined by relationship to production.

And yes, rampant corruption including nepotism is exactly what arises under state capitalism because the same fundamental class conflict incentivizes it.

reminder that khrushchev was a Stalinist bureaucrat who participated in the Great purges, his denunciation of Stalin is from an opportunistic position and unMarxist in analysis.

This is possibly the first time I've agreed with MLs. At least they're challenging the ebic maymays Holla Forums retards like to spew again and again.

I'm still confused by you're argument. In what way did the bureaucrats have an antithetical relationship to production (to the workers) as is inherent to capitalism? USSR managers and party officials, in order to retain their positions, were obliged to serve the interests of the proletariat. The administration of the means of production was carried out by the state and/or by state officials in cooperation with the trade unions and other entities. Private ownership of the means of production was abolished.
What else do you want me to say?

Won't be the last time if I can help it :^)

his insistence on no retreat throughout the front and ignoring information given to him by his intelligence sources.
His order to hold Kiev proved to be be a saving grace but everywhere else on the front not giving retreat orders was disastrous.
He should've prepared himself for the invasion earlier although I can't blame him TOO much because he was thinking rationally about Hitlers options and assumed he wouldn't push a two front war on himself.
Also his general offensive after Moscow was far too premature.

This "Real Existing Socialism" is so based, thank you Stalin.

This board is so cringe-worthy. It's just so extremely easy to prove that the USSR was a socialist society and yet here I am, explaining basic facts about the Soviet economy again thanks to anarchist illiteracy. Under capitalism the goal of production is largely to expand capital. To say this applies to the Soviet state is nothing but wishful thinking from those whose temper flares up at the mere mention of "USSR." To transcend capitalism an industrial society needs to create an associated economy by totally socializing all labor, meaning everybody works according to a common plan. This necessarily implies the abolition of class divisions and production geared towards use. Without capital, the goal of production must be to satisfy society's needs.

All of this obviously applies to the USSR. There couldn't possibly be any accumulation process when all resources (except consumer goods) were held in common through ownership by the industrial ministries which, under the Stalin economy, largely demonstrated no buying or selling between them.

How is this bad? Retreat without order is always looked down upon in military. It's called desertion. And retreating before the more mobile armies would only mean that you will die running. Especially in Ukraine - it's flat as fuck.

"Dig in and try to take down as much Nazis as possible before you are overrun" was the only order that could've been given.

Btw, Hitler gave the very same order after Soviet counter-offence begun. I wouldn't say it was the only thing that prevented collapse of Wehrmacht forces in the North, but it was close.

If you are referring to "Hitler is going to invade" claims, they were sent to Kremlin all the time. There over a dozen of different dates of invasion scheduled for 1940 alone. And then there "practically almost certain" dates of attack by Turkey and Japan.

Earlier than what? USSR started preparing economy in 1929. IIRC in 1931 Stalin even said that USSR has 10 years to become industrial state or it will get crushed.

What are you talking about? There was no two front war. And Soviets did expect (at some point) to get attacked by Reich. So were French and English, by the way. That didn't help them much.

It was a complete success. Nazis retreated for 300 km. How was that wrong or premature? They should've been left near the Moscow?

I'm not sure I got that right.

...

A Stalinist without the purges.

Do you say that in reference to there being more than two? Otherwise I think you will find that the European theatre of war was on both the western and eastern fronts.

1941. Where is the second front? Bombing raids over the Channel?

Oh boy, anarkiddies are going too far.

If I kill enough people, a winner is me!