The Soviet Union

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:45 pm

Molotov on Khrushchev
Posted on August 7, 2018 | Leave a comment

Image

“MOLOTOV: Khrushchev opposed Stalin and Leninist policy. He wanted changes in the Leninist policy pursued by Stalin and ultimately by all of us who supported Stalin. You know what the rightists were after? In the party? The rightists wanted to block us from pressing for the liquidation of the kulaks; they were champions of a pro-kulak policy. Even after the kulaks had been destroyed they continued to hold right-wing political views. So they maintained afterward that Stalin had pushed things too far, and that this had been a mistake. We saw this in Khrushchev, and spoke about it, and this was even openly acknowledged by the Central Committee under Stalin. Everyone makes mistakes. Lenin made mistakes, and Stalin made mistakes. Khrushchev was no exception. I had my own mistakes. Who is infallible? If, however, one has good intentions but is in error, he must be corrected …

Khrushchev hinted that Stalin had Kirov killed. There are some who still believe that story. The seeds of suspicion were planted. A commission was set up in 1956. Some twelve persons, from various backgrounds, looked through a welter of documents but found nothing incriminating Stalin. But these results have never been published.

CHUEV: Who else was on that commission?

MOLOTOV: As far as I can recall, Shvernik was on it, I think, Suslov, Kaganovich, Furtseva, Procurator-General Rudenko, also someone who used to work in the Cheka … what’s his name? In all, there were ten or twelve people. I don’t remember exactly. I think Mikoian was there, too. But I can’t be absolutely sure. Voroshilov, I think, wasn’t included in that commission. Or he might have been there after all. I can’t recall all of them.

The KGB made a special report. Rudenko’s group authenticated and examined the material–and there was a great deal of material. We used all the materials sent to us as well as those we managed to obtain ourselves.

The commission concluded that Stalin was not implicated in Kirov’s assassination. Khrushchev refused to have the findings published since they didn’t serve his purpose.

Khrushchev got by because we had many Khrushchev supporters. Stalin was firm, a firm hand–that was Stalin–and under that strong hand everyone sang the same tune. But as soon as that hand grew weak, everyone began to sing his own tune.

In 1957 Khrushchev was relieved of his duties for three days. This happened at one of the Politburo sessions. This, of course, had to be announced. He was chairing Politburo sessions; he was merely relieved of the chairmanship. Nothing more occurred then. He wasn’t removed from his job, and he couldn’t be removed. The Central Committee plenum would decide this. How else could he have been removed?

At the XXth Party Congress a Presidium consisting of eleven members had been elected. Later, in 1957, we decided to remove Khrushchev. At the Politburo he chaired its sessions; we decided to replace him with Bulganin. The point was that starting with Lenin–and it was always so–the chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars always chaired sessions of the Politburo. This was a Leninist tradition. From the beginning, Lenin chaired–when he was ill, Kamenev sat in for him– then Rykov chaired, then I, then Stalin. Khrushchev was the first to break with this Leninist tradition. He began to act like a regional party secretary … He was not chairman of the Council of Ministers, nevertheless he chaired Politburo sessions … Now we had Bulganin chair.

CHUEV: Did Khrushchev remain silent?

MOLOTOV: No way! He screamed, he was furious … But we had already reached an agreement. We were seven out of eleven, and his supporters were but three, including Mikoian. We had no program to advance. Our only goal was to remove Khrushchev and have him appointed minister of agriculture. Commotion could be heard behind the door. Furtseva, Serov, Ignatiev were there. They convened the members of the Central Committee.

The Central Committee plenary meeting was held the following day. Furtseva and Suslov were Central Committee secretaries who played roles. Serov played a major role. He employed the staff to best advantage. He had all the Central Committee members promptly summoned to Moscow. They all gathered in Suslov’s office. Serov helped out, though his role was purely technical. Inasmuch as Khrushchev remained the first secretary of the Central Committee, the entire staff was in his hands.

Suslov is such a small-minded politician! And he is a big bore, too.”

– Felix Chuev, “Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics” (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993), p. 346-360.

https://espressostalinist.com/2018/08/0 ... hrushchev/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
kidoftheblackhole
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by kidoftheblackhole » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:50 pm

The explanation was simple, the people just couldn't believe it, thought they would have socialism with western consumer goods and perhaps loosening up arts & political commentary. They couldn't even comprehend the perfidy of their leaders. I guess you can get slake living good.
I think Gorbachev believed the same thing. However, he was willing to sacrifice the socialism ins service of everything else -- particularly in service of his own internal political battles. Things quickly got out of hand from there. Stalin would have termed him "soft wax" I think (if he was speaking in a comradely way..Stalin would certainly have reserved something far worse than epithets for an epochal Judas).

One of the supporting pillars that indicate for this explanation is the simple fact that the Soviets were working to REVERSE many of the adverse conditions that are alternately (mostly incorrectly) cited as the reasons for the demise of the SU. In particular, the many tentacles of the Cold War (including, bitterly, the Eastern Bloc)

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:32 pm

kidoftheblackhole wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:50 pm
The explanation was simple, the people just couldn't believe it, thought they would have socialism with western consumer goods and perhaps loosening up arts & political commentary. They couldn't even comprehend the perfidy of their leaders. I guess you can get slake living good.
I think Gorbachev believed the same thing. However, he was willing to sacrifice the socialism ins service of everything else -- particularly in service of his own internal political battles. Things quickly got out of hand from there. Stalin would have termed him "soft wax" I think (if he was speaking in a comradely way..Stalin would certainly have reserved something far worse than epithets for an epochal Judas).

One of the supporting pillars that indicate for this explanation is the simple fact that the Soviets were working to REVERSE many of the adverse conditions that are alternately (mostly incorrectly) cited as the reasons for the demise of the SU. In particular, the many tentacles of the Cold War (including, bitterly, the Eastern Bloc)
I just don't understand how the 'Khrushchev' wing of the party was allowed to fucking exist, much less weasel it's way into control. Hadn't these matters been settled? The Molotov piece above puts a point on it. Apparently the Party had not been properly purged...and then here comes the Nazis.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
kidoftheblackhole
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by kidoftheblackhole » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:09 pm

I think that the thread you're following will quickly lead you off the cliff to full-blown "crazy".

Let me give you a quote from the espressostalinst about "Soviet Revisionism::
Brezhnevism

Another colloquial word, “Brezhnevism” is a blanket term for supporters of the later Soviet Union and the pro-Soviet line. This form of thinking is a revisionist yet at first alluring ideology based around the belief that Khrushchev was a rightist deviator from Marxism-Leninism but that Brezhnev put a halt to this continued trend and consolidated socialism.

It has come to mean basically “Pan-Socialism,” which can be aptly defined as “if a world leader claimed to be socialist and [probably] wasn’t named Tito, then he or she probably was, and if he or she claimed to lead a socialist nation under Marxist-Leninist guidelines, then so much the better.” Of course, even this definition is not comprehensive, since many pro-Soviet parties have begun rehabilitation of Tito and Yugoslavia. Brezhnevites generally state that Leonid Brezhnev, Joseph Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Deng Xiaoping, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Nicolae Ceausescu, Enver Hoxha, Mao Zedong and many others were all genuine in their communist views, but that the latter two specifically made mistakes and/or moved too far towards the ultra-left when they split with the USSR. They condemn “Hoxhaism” and Maoism as “sectarian” and its analysis of state-capitalism as ultra-left and en route towards the road of rightism.

Similarly, they deny the concept of social-imperialism and defend the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan in particular as fully justified, while also defending present-day China as socialist. They respond to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 with disdain, supporting the government’s move against the students.


Brezhnevism is strong as a movement primarily because it allows for the acceptance of virtually all communist lines as acceptable and adopting an appealing “call to arms” towards all segments of Marxism-Leninism to unite towards revolution. In the process however, it ignores the fact that Marxist-Leninists do call for unity, just not unity for the sake of unity. Brezhnevites are also engaging in meaningless talk when they discuss “sectarianism,” since the issue of whether China is socialist or not (among many other things) can in no way be viewed as a minor issue.

Brezhnevism also has at its basis a welfarist appeal to emotion. What makes a country “socialist?” Well, first it claims to be socialist, and it is led by a communist party of some sort. It also provides for the people (however varied the “provisions” be, from the DPRK to Cuba to China). Clearly, the “great concern” a country has for its citizens magically makes it socialist when such is backed up by socialist rhetoric, if we are to believe the Brezhnevites. When this fails, of course, they go into a Trotskyist-like “defense of the gains of the revolution,” condemning all criticisms of a “socialist” country as attempts at “counterrevolution.”

Many of them are just honestly trying to be revolutionaries, but are just misguided about the historical experiences of communist movement, socialism and the capitalist restoration (which they think was only initiated during Gotbachev’s times). Many of these people are open to Marxist-Leninist analysis and views.

Examples of Soviet Social-Imperialism (this is the headline for the next section followed mainly by screeds against Soviet invasions in Eastern Europe mostly- KOBH)
Read the paragraph I bolded and tell me what it says:

The SU was "social imperialist", "invaded" Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan without justification, and fast forwarding to the present present day capitalist China should be condemned while supporting the student Tiananmen Protesters of '89 (which doesn't strike one at all as a blatant attempt at counterrevolution :rolleyes:)

Again, where does any of that lead?

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:11 pm

I don't see where you are coming from. By the definition provided I am a 'Brezhnevist', though more nuanced about Mao & honestly don't know enough about Hoxha(though I do like bunkers...) That analysis, especially the paragraphs after bolding, are dead ass wrong.

Having trouble seeing connection between recognizing there were factions in the Party that Stalin was unable to persuade or purge and who by hook or crook wormed their way to power and going ultra left crazytown. I'm confused, you recognize the above as garbage(best I can tell) but then seemingly agree with part of it. Was there no historical basis for the counterrevolution? I just find it hard to believe that that factor was small change and that the counterrevolution was driven by rational economic analysis of loyal communists. What else could it be?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
kidoftheblackhole
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by kidoftheblackhole » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:51 pm

blindpig wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:11 pm
I don't see where you are coming from. By the definition provided I am a 'Brezhnevist', though more nuanced about Mao & honestly don't know enough about Hoxha(though I do like bunkers...) That analysis, especially the paragraphs after bolding, are dead ass wrong.

Having trouble seeing connection between recognizing there were factions in the Party that Stalin was unable to persuade or purge and who by hook or crook wormed their way to power and going ultra left crazytown. I'm confused, you recognize the above as garbage(best I can tell) but then seemingly agree with part of it. Was there no historical basis for the counterrevolution? I just find it hard to believe that that factor was small change and that the counterrevolution was driven by rational economic analysis of loyal communists. What else could it be?
The point being that you have to cut things extremely thin to blame Khruschev and then wait almost 30 years after he is ousted to be proved right.

EDIT: and I wrote a MUCH longer reply earlier but it appears to be..gone..

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:34 pm

kidoftheblackhole wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:51 pm
blindpig wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:11 pm
I don't see where you are coming from. By the definition provided I am a 'Brezhnevist', though more nuanced about Mao & honestly don't know enough about Hoxha(though I do like bunkers...) That analysis, especially the paragraphs after bolding, are dead ass wrong.

Having trouble seeing connection between recognizing there were factions in the Party that Stalin was unable to persuade or purge and who by hook or crook wormed their way to power and going ultra left crazytown. I'm confused, you recognize the above as garbage(best I can tell) but then seemingly agree with part of it. Was there no historical basis for the counterrevolution? I just find it hard to believe that that factor was small change and that the counterrevolution was driven by rational economic analysis of loyal communists. What else could it be?
The point being that you have to cut things extremely thin to blame Khruschev and then wait almost 30 years after he is ousted to be proved right.

EDIT: and I wrote a MUCH longer reply earlier but it appears to be..gone..
Can't really 'blame' Khruschev any more than we can throw all the blame on Gorby. Points on a graph, results not causes. Nonetheless, responsible for their actions. An assortment of causes contributed to conditions which came to a head, the Cold War and it's drain on the economy being probably the biggest. Aging of the industrial plant was mentioned by Anax, I recall. What I'm more interested in is how this faction that would be amiable to such regressive policy existed in the Soviet state. In spite of Stalin. Were the 'core Bolsheviks' so weak that coalition with closet SocDems was a necessity? Did the post-revolution influx of petty booj into the Party, also a practical necessity, have significant effect? I got more questions than answers, that's for sure.

What is to be done? A party of Rakhmetovs seems an answer, however tall a bill to fill. And time is seriously wasting. We need battalions of Fosterites and we got Twitter...

Wish I wasn't old.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:58 pm

kidoftheblackhole wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:51 pm
blindpig wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:11 pm
I don't see where you are coming from. By the definition provided I am a 'Brezhnevist', though more nuanced about Mao & honestly don't know enough about Hoxha(though I do like bunkers...) That analysis, especially the paragraphs after bolding, are dead ass wrong.

Having trouble seeing connection between recognizing there were factions in the Party that Stalin was unable to persuade or purge and who by hook or crook wormed their way to power and going ultra left crazytown. I'm confused, you recognize the above as garbage(best I can tell) but then seemingly agree with part of it. Was there no historical basis for the counterrevolution? I just find it hard to believe that that factor was small change and that the counterrevolution was driven by rational economic analysis of loyal communists. What else could it be?
The point being that you have to cut things extremely thin to blame Khruschev and then wait almost 30 years after he is ousted to be proved right.

EDIT: and I wrote a MUCH longer reply earlier but it appears to be..gone..
Guy DM"d me this piece on Twit, this bit of which seems relevant to our discussion:
What Exactly Is Modern Revisionism?

“Chairman Mao teaches us: ‘The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, so does the bourgeoisie.’ In the sharp clash between the two world outlooks, either you crush me, or I crush you. It will not do to sit on the fence; there is no middle road. The overthrown bourgeoisie, in their plots for restoration and subversion, always give first place to ideology, take hold of ideology and the superstructure. The representatives of the bourgeoisie, by using their position and power, usurped and controlled the leadership of a number of departments, did all they could to spread bourgeois and revisionist poison through the media of literature, the theatre, films, music, the arts, the press, periodicals, the radio, publications and academic research and schools, etc., in an attempt to corrupt people’s minds and perpetrate ‘peaceful evolution’ as ideological preparation and preparation of public opinion for capitalist restoration. If our proletarian ideology does not take over the position, then the bourgeois ideology will have free rein; it will gradually nibble away and chew you up bit by bit. Once proletarian ideology gives way, so will the superstructure and the economic base and this means the restoration of capitalism. Therefore, we must arm our minds with Mao Tse-tung’s thought and establish a firm proletarian world outlook. We must use the great Mao Tse-tung’s thought to fight and completely destroy the bourgeois ideological and cultural positions.”

“Mao Tse-Tung’s Thought is the Telescope and Microscope of Our Revolutionary Cause,” Editorial of the Liberation Army Daily (Jiefangjun Bao): June 7, 1966

https://imixwhatilike.org/2018/01/16/ne ... -politics/
bolding added
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
kidoftheblackhole
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by kidoftheblackhole » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:22 pm

Its not that simple because *being determines consciousness*

"peaceful evolution" isn't just an enemy contrivance for the purpose of propaganda. ANYONE would prefer peaceful evolution to all out bloody class warfare. Of course the allure of the idea is used in the most pernicious way -- but it gains a foothold for MATERIAL reasons. The ideological expression is much more a function and expression of those underlying reasons than it is a driver of sentiment. Yes, the proletariat must CONSCIOUSLY work to seize social control -- but not because of its whim but because of the material imperative(s) to do so (up to and including the imperative of survival/perpetuation of the species).

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10587
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Soviet Union

Post by blindpig » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:48 pm

kidoftheblackhole wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:22 pm
Its not that simple because *being determines consciousness*

"peaceful evolution" isn't just an enemy contrivance for the purpose of propaganda. ANYONE would prefer peaceful evolution to all out bloody class warfare. Of course the allure of the idea is used in the most pernicious way -- but it gains a foothold for MATERIAL reasons. The ideological expression is much more a function and expression of those underlying reasons than it is a driver of sentiment. Yes, the proletariat must CONSCIOUSLY work to seize social control -- but not because of its whim but because of the material imperative(s) to do so (up to and including the imperative of survival/perpetuation of the species).
I agree with you here, yet the net effect is the same.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply