>Soviet Union only prospered under his one decade reign
How did he do it?
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Soviet Union only prospered under his one decade reign
>Soviet Union only prospered under his one decade reign
How did he do it?
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
He was only 50 percent moronic instead of the standard 90 percent moronic that most Soviet leaders were.
this. He wasn’t a bloody Asiatic despot that was completely contemptuous of preserving human life like Stalin, and he wasn’t a ditsy-minded reformist like Gorbachev. He was a relatively humane man who nonetheless understood the fact that Slavs needed a strong hand to keep them from going to shit and chimping out.
He really wasn’t that bright in general but hey, he wasn’t dumb enough to contribute to starting WW3, so good for him I guess. It’s kind of weird and funny that Russians don’t like him much and like Brezhnev instead.
Typically "revisionists" i.g. people who aren't brain orthdox followers of Marx are more prone to reason, than dogma, and make better decisions.
Inertia from Stalin's reign and Khrushchev taking his place is why the prosperity only lasted for a decade
Be Ukrainian (re. have a brain)
Neither of his parents were Ukrainian you dumb mutt
born and raised in ukraine
Does not make him Ukrainian, he was a Russian living in Ukraine
The only Ukrainian general secretary was too old and sick to accomplish anything noteworthy
By focusing on light industry and consumer goods instead of autistic obsession with steel to make tanks. Breznev put like 15% of Soviet GDP to military, compared to US 4%.
Khrushchev was one of the worst rulers of the USSR.
1. he freed officials from all responsibility by abolishing the Ministry of State Control, which caused corruption to skyrocket and remained so until the collapse of the USSR.
2. Destroyed artels, confiscating their property (without compensation, in fact robbing artel workers), thus suppressing the grassroots initiative of citizens and forcing potential entrepreneurs to go underground and engage in crime.
3. eliminated homestead farms of townspeople and collective farmers by introducing huge taxes on livestock and fruit trees, reduced the number of plots, limited the number of livestock, etc. That is, it became unprofitable to maintain a private farm. If earlier millions of people were fed from their own plots and sold their surplus at markets, now these people became consumers of products from stores. Food supply disruptions began, there was a shortage of bread, meat, milk, butter and other basic foodstuffs. In some regions of the country cards were introduced.
4 "Ryazan Miracle" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryazan_miracle )
5. Spent huge amounts of money to develop virgin lands, but due to the lack of any infrastructure, most of the crops rotted away. After 7 years, due to soil erosion and dust storms, yields became so low that collective farmers could not even collect seeds for new sowing.
If before the USSR almost did not import grain, after Khrushchev's experiments the country began to buy it in huge quantities and this dependence grew until the end of the USSR.
6. He banned the so-called "excesses in architecture", because of which the whole USSR and the Eastern bloc countries were built up with ugly commie blocks.
7. He reduced the army by laying off a huge number of soldiers and officers.
Khrushchev believed that the most important thing was missiles, so the navy, artillery and aviation were not needed. As a result, funding for many military developments was frozen and the USSR began to lag behind in weapons development.
8. De-Stalinization led to the rupture of relations with China and Albania, and to the split of the socialist camp into two sides.
In his attempts to establish relations with the U.S. he achieved nothing. Almost brought the world to World War 3 (Caribbean crisis). The Berlin crisis and the building of the Berlin Wall was also Khrushchev's doing.
Khrushchev quarreled with all allies and embarrassed the USSR for the whole world with his clownish antics at the UN and on American television.
You’re not going to convince me or anyone sane that killing the gulag system was a bad thing. That was the only thing keeping the USSR afloat during Stalin’s reign.
Is Dedovshchina Khrushchev's fault? I've seen it linked to the draft reform he instituted which created junior and senior conscripts.
Yes.
Yes. As another reason, I'd add the conscription of criminals who brought thuggish rules to the army.
Was that Khrushchev? I think they conscripted prisoners during the war too.
into penal units, they didn't mix fresh conscription with them
In general Russia's obsession with incarceration and extending aspects of it into nearly every facet of life is one of the most deeply systemic problems the country has faced since it's founding and has waxed and waned in intensity for the duration of the nation's history
Is it true that the reason Stalin reformed the Politburo into presidium is a start of a larger reform of moving away the executive power from the Party and into the Council of Ministers? The end result would be that the Party will mostly act as an HR for recruiting and training of the country officials, but the legislative and executive power will rest on the country gorverment entities and not the Party, but Stalin died before the seperation of the Party from the government can be fully implemented.
Yes, the coup attempt led by Molotov and co. was a backlash against the entrenchment of the party bureaucracy headed by Khrushchev that Stalin had fought against after the war
But I just can't imagine a one party state where the power is not in the Party itself. Is Vietnam or Cuba still have the power concentrated in the Party too like China and USSR?
>Cuba
Yes. Laos, Cuba, and North Korea are traditional Marxist-Leninist regimes with NK being Stalinist. China is also increasingly Maoist/Stalinist.
>Vietnam
Vietnam does but isn't a one-man regime. It's very much run from the Politburo like the Brezhnev-era USSR but with the economy of post-Cold War China.
>Khruschev was bad because he made private farms unprofitable
>Khruschev increased taxes
>Khruschev went after entrepreneurs
This is such an ironic argument to make when Marxists are suppose to be AGAINST the profit motive, moron. Why would you criticize Khruschev for this?
You're fricking criticizing Khruschev for going after bourgeoisie, moron.
>De-stalinization
Best thing that he did. Stalin was a mass murdering pedophile. Denouncing his crimes was a moral duty.
>Marxists
>Supposed
>Profit
You never read Marx
his criticisms aren't of Khruschev being bad at Marxism, they're of him being bad at statecraft; i.e. how successful the Soviet Union on the world stage was and the quality of the average Soviet citizen's life under his incumbency
you and
are completely correct that he was much better than Stalin in both regards (or at least with individual quality of life, how a Khrushev politburo would have handled Operation Barbarossa had he been secretary during the time could only be shot-in-the-dark speculated on) but things like how he dropped the ball on agriculture and fricked the officer and NCO corps of the Red Army while NATO was perpetually breathing down their necks can't just be explained by him having to kludge solutions to Stalin's messes
>almost all scientific and space achievements basically happened under his rule
>economic reforms and decentralization as well as liberalization of the arts which increased consumer goods production and modernized the Soviet economy
>construction of mass housing happened under his rule
>Quality of life surged under his rule (no more killing people for no reason)
Pic related is what the USSR looked like during the Khrushchev Era. He should have ruled for life.
Based Effortpost, it's rare to find people here with a genuinely good grip of Soviet history beyond the usual shit.
Through the power of corn.
>de-stalinize
>integrate your newly gained puppets
>marginally improve the quality of life by actually building housing and manufacturing consumer goods (unheard of in stalinist Russia)
Define prospered... wtf
Khrushchev is almost single-handedly responsible for the Soviet Union becoming reliant on grain imports rather than being a net exporter under Stalin
Stalin's policy of never importing grain in peacetime did need changing. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens could have been saved and millions would have grown up healthier if he had imported grain from America to feed them during the postwar famine.
>country with the most fertile and vast temperate farmland on earth has to import grain
This alone should explain why the USSR was doomed from the start
Best times in USSR were 1965-1975, Kosygin reform era.
Commieblock construction really sped up
government finally devoted production to consumer goods
oil crisis of gave USSR alot of hard currency to buy more complex machinery and computers
becoming depended on oil exports was beginning of end for USSR
Half on topic here, but it's amazing how much the USSR dropped the ball. Russia has literally no excuse not to be the wealthiest, largest economy on earth. Today they have an economy smaller than South Korea. It's insane how they basically got every decision wrong in the 20th century, all the time.
same with Italy tho to a lesser degree
Russia is de facto landlocked with black sea being only warm water access.
Also, economy is probably twice as high as official figures since its hard to hell whats part of the shadow economy and whats part of the official "on paper" economy.
How do you mean? Italy's economy is slightly smaller than Britain and France's is. Probably where it should be.
>Russia has literally no excuse not to be the wealthiest, largest economy on earth
Try proving the positive. What is the reason for them to be the wealthiest, largest economy on Earth?
If you say natural resources, then you go into the moron folder.
>one of the most educated populations on earth
>large population with strong sense of cultural, national, historical identity
>incredibly stoic, obedient, but also weirdly ambitious population, will die for even the most moronic leadership and believe everything fromthe most overcomplicated pseud insanity to complete bullshit
>export-based economy with a robust and long-standing heavy industry element
>christian
>long history of state structures
>always a highly ambitious foreign policy that's willing to take big risks
>large area with high strategic depth
They have a ton of legs up even when compared to other major powers. Mongols and eventually Communism ruined them.
>>one of the most educated populations on earth
Stopped reading right there. Stop wasting oxygen.
I mean, obviously not throughout history(Idk what your frame of reference is regarding time period), but one of the few benefits of the USSR was mandating education, and particularly emphasizing math and science post-Lysenko. It gave them a big leg up in engineering and to this day it's one of Russia's aces in the hole. And even though historically it's majority population have been illiterate serfs, their elite had been dynamic, educated, and diverse in the imperial era.
Russia was ruined by the destruction of the USSR. Russian engineers and scientists continue to contribute magnificent advancements in science and technology but Russia has suffered from a varying degree of brain drain since the 90s, especially since 2022.
The USSR itself is the reason why Russia is a shell of a society. Late Imperial Russia had arguably the most potential of any country in history and it was completely squandered by the Soviets.
>Late Imperial Russia had arguably the most potential of any country in history
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Industrializing at a breakneck speed
>Finally ended serfdom
>Started democratizing, constitutionalizing, and liberalizing all around
>Highest birthrate of all major powers
>Dated and incompetent but very large military that was exponentially modernizing after being raped by the Japs
>Literacy, education, etc all coming to fruition slowly but surely, at a remarkable place given the nonexistent position they were in a few decades ago
>Ambitious plans to expand influence into the Balkans, Central Europe, Middle East, Afghanistan, China, and others
>More natural resources than to know what to do with
>Huge amounts of technological and general scientific innovation
>Arguably the most culturally influential country in the world at the time, on par with the British and French producing figures like Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, etc.
>Diverse, educated, and dynamic if distant and narcissistic elite
What it could have been...
>Industrializing at a breakneck speed
this is not bait. this is gigabait supreme: director's cut
He's right you moron. It's one of the reasons the Germans were so alarmed about Russia.
They were alarmed at the prospect of it catching up from its pit of incompetence, moron. It very much WASN'T industralizing at a breakneck speed.
Late, but it was and you are stupid.
The anon who replied to you isn't me, but I'll give my actual reasons when I made the post:
>Already was industrialising rapidly. Once countries reach this point it's hard to slow them down.
>Had huge energy reserves of oil that would make industrialisation later easier.
>Inherited all of Eastern Europe as puppet states and could've naturally dominated them forever had it not dropped the ball so hard.
Like, the anomaly with Russia is it suddenly stopped growing in the 1970s thanks to central planning. But most countries don't stop growing. That and it destroyed itself completely in 1991. Its modern economy is basically a giant cartel and is effectively doomed.
>Late, but it was and you are stupid.
Late and without an actual argument. I win, Timmy.
Krushev was the rare case of a politician being being a corrupt sociopath but being actually, legitimately too unintelligent for his role. The man had no idea what he was doing, at all.
Commies literally hate him more than the USA kek. Poor guy, hated by anticommies because he was the head of the SU, hated by commies because he thought Stalin went a little too hard on his own people
Corn
The Sino-Soviet split permanently doomed both Communism and the USSR.
>I started working as soon as I learned how to walk. Until the age of fifteen, I worked as a shepherd. I tended, as the foreigners say when they use the Russian language, "the little cows," I was a sheepherder, I herded cows for a capitalist, and that was before I was fifteen. After that, I worked at a factory for a German, and I worked in a French-owned mine, I worked at a Belgian-owned chemical factory, and [now] I'm the Prime Minister of the great Soviet state. And I am in no way ashamed of my past because all work is worthy of respect. Work as such cannot be dirty, it is only conscience that can be.
—Khrushchev's speech in Hollywood, translated by Viktor Sukhodrev[14]
What did he meant by this?
He is both saying he was a laborer and that there is no shame in doing low class work.
Malenkov probably would’ve been better.