this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
83 points (76.8% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
3309 readers
56 users here now
#funny
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bad reforms. Deng Xiaoping did a good job reforming China without demonising its communist history. Khrushchev chose to demonize Stalin, and in doing so compromised the integrity of the communist party. Two decades of degeneration later the party's economic policy gets a lot worse and stagnation sets in. The rest is history.
One shouldn’t ignore the imperialist states’ contributions to the collapse.
Of course. The Soviet Union was constantly hounded by the international bourgeoisie since the day of its creation. Here I'm only referencing the lynch-pin of the collapse.
Interesting, can you expand on what you mean by Khrushchev demonizing Stalin compromising the integrity of the communist party?
I come from a liberal country so most of what I know about Stalin is just that he sucked. No idea how much of that folks on ML disagree with, whether he had many legitimate issues, or folks in your community see him as having been more demonized by western voices- I would be open to perspectives on that subject
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me :)
Not OP, but I recall reading an essay by Carlos Martinez where he explained it as the following:
Most people, regardless of what economic system they live in, don’t really have a real understanding of that system. Consider how many people actually understand what “capitalism” is today. While the Soviets did try what they could to educate their people in this regard, it’s kind of a human thing that most people just want to live their lives and aren’t going to bother trying to figure out how they economy around them works.
So even if most people in the USSR didn’t really understand what “socialism” was, they did know that the improvement in their material conditions from the beginning of Stalin’s tenure to the end was truly incredible (and indeed, as impressive as China’s growth has been in recent decades by some measure the USSR under Stalin grew by even greater leaps). For good or ill, they associated the person of Stalin with “socialism” because Stalin was a socialist and Bolshevik revolutionary, and that period saw a massive improvement in their living conditions (WW2 notwithstanding of course).
So by denouncing Stalin, many people in the Soviet Union saw that as a de facto denunciation of socialism, since the two were so closely tied together in their minds. If you equate Stalin with socialism, and the current leaders are denouncing Stalin, then at the very least that will lead to some confused feelings about socialism.
how convenient that I'm currently skimming https://ia801605.us.archive.org/6/items/pdfy-nmIGAXUrq0OJ87zK/Khrushchev%20Lied.pdf