You must log in or # to comment.
Explanation: While none of the higher-ups of the Soviet Union were saints, especially during the Stalinist era, Nikita Khrushchev was pretty inoffensive as far as the top brass went - an apparatchik and technocrat with an especial interest in farming. He survived primarily by being the ‘court jester’, accepting being the butt of Stalin’s jokes and degrading himself in exchange for continued survival at the Red Tsar’s Court - considering that the alternative was very often… an assignment with a low survival rate.
Khrushchev would go on, after Stalin’s death, to clinch the effective position of head of the Soviet Union, and embark on a pretty extensive policy of ‘destalinization’, reversing many of Stalin’s worst policies and attempting to build a more ‘rational’ and sustainable Soviet oligarchy.
Be careful who you bully!
Mandatory note that Khrushchev was no saint as autocrat either - as the saying goes, the issue is not the monarch, but the monarchy. He did perpetuate the Soviet system as a whole, despite some attempts at reform; and was directly responsible (despite some hesitation) for giving the order to crush Hungary’s socialist revolution.
His interest in farming also ended up damaging the agriculture of the Soviet Union, ironically - upon a friendly visit to the USA, he became enamored with the possibilities of corn (a legitimately very useful and versatile crop), and attempted to establish its cultivation across the Soviet Union. Because he was the most powerful man in the country with no real countervailing institutions of power to defy him, this went through without delay, including in many areas where the climate was simply not suitable for corn.
The trials and tribulations of Krushchev and Gorbachev are quite sad. The USSR had two chances to actually deliver what it was claiming was its goal for its people, but failed due to various circumstances and the hard choices that were made to perpetuate the status quo or face worse consequences (for them and the USSR).
I’ve started feeling that the soviet union (and maybe china) are the worst things to have happened to communism/socialism/the left. Without these aggressive and authoritarian countries, the examples you have of left wing labour movements and their consequences are social democratic implementations in places like scandinavia.
For all that I will condemn Khrushchev, overwhelmingly my condemnations are for him as a part of the rotten Soviet system as a whole more than him as an individual. It’s sad, because I think Khrushchev was a genuine believer in (admittedly only moderate) reform and a better future. But as Robespierre once said, “To rule innocently is madness.” Anyone who has power over a system is trapped in a no-win scenario - either sacrifice the power you have to influence it, and let other (potentially worse) people take over the reins; or do what you can to perpetuate the system, and all of its horrors, in the hopes that you can steer it to a less-bad outcome.
I honestly think the Soviet Union was one of the worst things to happen to international leftism. Their demand that communist parties in the West follow Moscow’s line discredited what influence they had, and the obsession with crushing non-ML leftists in ongoing revolutions (like the insistence on crushing the Trots and anarchists in the Spanish Civil War before crushing the fascists) ensured that the ML interpretation of socialism sucked up all the oxygen in public discourse for the better part of a century.
The PRC’s horrors, by contrast, have mostly been either domestic or blatant imperialism.
It’s sad, because I think Khrushchev was a genuine believer in (admittedly only moderate) reform and a better future. But as Robespierre once said, “To rule innocently is madness.” Anyone who has power over a system is trapped in a no-win scenario - either sacrifice the power you have to influence it, and let other (potentially worse) people take over the reins; or do what you can to perpetuate the system, and all of its horrors, in the hopes that you can steer it to a less-bad outcome.
You put
into words my opinions better than I could. Thank you.You put my opinions into words better than I could. Thank you.
EDIT : JFC, I can’t even express my gratitude properly.
Yeah power forces you to make decisions with human cost, then by necessity it insulates you from a lot of that cost. It destroys the mind whether by isolation from consequences of your actions, which reduces your ability to understand or care for the little people, or by immense stress as you try not to stop seeing the people you hurt, which can lead one very rapidly towards substance abuse.
their consequences are social democratic implementations in places like scandinavia.
Their consequences are basically all labor rights in the world. The problem isn’t that the bad discredited the good, it’s that the good is intentionally ignored by mainstream politics. That’s why the average person doesn’t know how much of their quality of life they owe to militant leftwing action. You shouldn’t treat political discourse as a truth seeking exercise because it isn’t.
God, what I would give for late 19th century/early 20th century militant labor movements back
just a few bombs
as a treat
I’d add a third opportunity, had leadership seen Kronstadt as a wake up call rather than a rebellion they could have implemented left wing pluralism. If the overton window is so far left that allowing capital is unthinkable there’s no risk to your revolution by having it, whereas a single party state makes course correction incredibly unlikely.
It’s corn! It’s got the juice.
