Malenkov is the easy answer and he did actually technically and briefly succeed Stalin before Khrushchev did.
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
28 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4561 readers
75 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I heard that answer many times, but was he really good candidate? In most critical time he was limp dick who did nothing and got ousted by Khrushchev with not many problems. He could be a good candidate for many offices, as his career proves, but not the highest one.
That's why I said easiest answer, as in the most realistic and obvious, I don't doubt there would of been better candidates then Malenkov if you could choose anyone. I'm not really knowledgeable enough about the various other obscure Soviet politicians of that time frame to give an answer there though.
If we assume Khrushchev is not a problem, then the most obvious one would be not Malenkov but Beria.
If you look at who the most demonization and smears were spread about then certainly you get the impression that the revisionists feared Beria the most. And he does indeed seem to have been the most politically capable of the potential successors, but i've always thought Molotov was perhaps after Stalin the most principled and most "true believer" Marxist-Leninist of the Soviet leadership at the time.
that the revisionists feared Beria the most
Yes they did. If you read the famous Furr book "Khrushchev lied", Furr explains there that at first he didn't even paid special attention, but it's the blatant lies Khrushchev told about Beria made him to look closer and investigate entire speech.
Molotov
Quite possibly
Are you claiming there was a soviet-union-wide conspiracy to smear Beria, consisting of falsified documents and spanning over 20 years? Involving not only the Russian SFSR, but Georgian, Azerbaijani, Abkhazian communist parties as well?
Khrushchev and his cronies managed to invent in a couple of months a trove of evidence against Beria that was corroborated by many others (co-conspirators, no doubt).
OR, Beria was a monster.
I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here.
Malenkov, Molotov, Kaganovich, possibly even Beriya, all would have been better than Khrushchev.
I vote comrade Yogthos.