Best Soviet Leader?

I like Brezhnev better than both of them.

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_stagnation

Khruschchev's doctrine of "peaceful coexistance" and the fact that he managed to keep up the Stalinist economic growth and Andropov's fight against corruption and stagnation that had grown wild under Brezhnev's era make them both look a lot better than Brezhnev.

Khrushchev completely ruined Stalin's legacy. As a fellow Stalinist I thought you'd share that view. As for Andropov he was only leader for like two years or so.

How did Khrushchev "completely ruin Stalin's legacy?"

He denounced Stalin, which was stupid in the extreme and proves that he was a backstabbing, power-hungry son of a bitch, but completely runining Stalin's legacy would mean abolishing Socialism, and he didn't do that. He kept the economic growth coming, the Soviet standard of living increased a lot during his rule and he did quite well during the Cuban crisis.

Andropov was only leader for two years, that's right, but he did some cool stuff nonetheless. He was the first one to battle corruption after Stalin died and he was the first one to openly criticize the stagnation of the Soviet economy during Brezhnev's rule. What did Brezhnev ever accomplish? He basically just sat there, waiting for his death. And when he did something, it mostly turned out bad. For example, he crushed the Prague Spring without any reason.

Quote:

I like Brezhnev better than both of them.

Brezhnev went from a wannabe corrupt playboy to a senile old man.

I think De-Stalinization ruined Stalin's legacy.

Quote:

he did quite well during the Cuban crisis

Did he? The way I remember it Kennedy completely screwed him and he got nothing out of the whole ordeal.

Quote:

I think De-Stalinization ruined Stalin's legacy.

I think betraying the revolution ruined Stalin's legacy. That, and purging the army of capable officers and the winter war with Finland.

My view is that Lenin and Stalin were the most outstanding leaders of the Soviet Union, who led the USSR through success after success, first in the Great October Socialist Revolution, then in socialist construction.

Bukharin and Trotsky (and those who grouped themselves around them in the "Left" and Right Oppositions) made errors that led them down counter-revolutionary paths.

Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev were revisionists who restored capitalism in a process that lasted from 1956 to 1991, basically from the 20th Congress through the 28th Congress.

I think Malenkov was also good, and played a positive (though unsuccessful) role in his struggle against Khrushchev. Molotov was also good, overall.

I'm wondering what people here think of Yuri Andropov?

Good books to look at about this are:

Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens
Trotskyism or Leninism? by Harpal Brar
Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism by Harpal Brar
Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union 1917-1991 by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny
The Collapse of the Soviet Union: Causes and Lessons by the International Communist Seminar, Brussels

Two good summations of this that you can read online are:

The 1999 Declaration of the International Communist Seminar
Balance of the Collapse of the Soviet Union by Ludo Martens

Quote:

I'm wondering what people here think of Yuri Andropov?

Very good. In fact, he is my favourite post Lenin/Stalin leader. As Mabool mentions above, he was the first Soviet leader to openly fight against corruption and the economic stagnation which began during the Brezhnev era. Had Gorbachev's clique not won the power struggle after his death and a leader who shared Andropov's vision come to power instead, I think there would still be a Soviet Union today.

The one good thing I have to say about Brezhnev is that he put a stop to most of the stupid things Khrushchev did during his era.

Quote:

Bukharin and Trotsky (and those who grouped themselves around them in the "Left" and Right Oppositions) made errors that led them down counter-revolutionary paths.

Define, in exact terms, Trotsky's supposed counter-revolutionary path.

Lets see. Immediate demands for a continuination of the Civil War outside Russian borders, pressing for continued war against Poland, and the rest of the world? Well maybe counter-revolutionary was too strong of a word. But benign idiocy doesn't fit either. He wasn't benign, he was in a position of power. Maybe you can help me out.

... uh if anything that sounds overly revolutionary (and in the case of Poland he was absolutely right). I wanna know what, exactly, was counter-revolutionary about Trotsky.

I don't know. I took my best shot. And in the case of Poland he was wrong. The Red Army was in no condition to fight anyone at that time. Poland perceived it as a nationalist Russian invasion. And Russia itself was not an advanced socialist society. I was a society that only recently moved from feudalism to capitalism.

EDIT: Ok, I'm sorry. Maybe (well not maybe, I do) I have an irrational dislike for stupid people.

But was accepting what Poland became (a bulwark against expanding revolution) worth leaving alone? I think history has proven it wasn't. While I won't claim that Poland was some lynch-pin in the whole scenario but it was a damn important step, and the elimination of Pilsudski and his proto-fascist ilk could only be seen as a positive step for the world.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Define, in exact terms, Trotsky's supposed counter-revolutionary path.

Trotsky was overtly opposed to Leninism prior to 1917, both organizationally and politically, particularly in organizing the August Bloc of Rights and Liquidators. After 1917 he became covertly opposed to Leninism in the guise of opposing so-called "Stalinism". After his ideas were rejected again and again, he organized anti-Party demonstrations (which were poorly attended and met with scorn by the people of the Soviet Union) along with Zinoviev and was finally expelled. His persistance in his opposition to Leninism finally led him to organizing a terrorist center in the Soviet Union for the purposes of sabotage, wrecking, and assassination, including the assassination of Kirov, with the aim of counter-revolutionary overthrow of the dicatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union.

Again, see:

Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens
Trotskyism or Leninism? by Harpal Brar

Some good texts you can read about this online is:

The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now by J. V. Stalin
Preface to Trotskyism or Leninism? by Harpal Brar

Those sources don't go down well with Trotskyites comrade.

Quote:

Trotsky was overtly opposed to Leninism prior to 1917, both organizationally and politically, particularly in organizing the August Bloc of Rights and Liquidators. After 1917 he became covertly opposed to Leninism in the guise of opposing so-called "Stalinism". After his ideas were rejected again and again, he organized anti-Party demonstrations (which were poorly attended and met with scorn by the people of the Soviet Union) along with Zinoviev and was finally expelled. His persistance in his opposition to Leninism finally led him to organizing a terrorist center in the Soviet Union for the purposes of sabotage, wrecking, and assassination, including the assassination of Kirov, with the aim of counter-revolutionary overthrow of the dicatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union.

A lot of this sounds like the nonsense Stalin used to justify his mock trials of political enemies. Using the term "Trotskyite" as an attack word, much in the same vein as McCarthy used "communist." A very convienent way to ensure you eliminate your political rivals and use the party apparatus to secure authoritarian powers.

Lenin himself was leary of Stalin taking over.

Also, check out "The Revolution Betrayed" in which Trotsky predicts that the USSR will topple as a result of capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy. Trotsky was not "counter revolutionary". The man wanted "permanent revoultion" and argued against socialism in one state (which, as we have seen, can't work).

Fellow Comrade wrote:

Those sources don't go down well with Trotskyites comrade.

They are well known communist texts by respected Marxist-Leninists. If the only sources the trots will accept as credible are bourgeois anti-communist books or trotskyite anti-communist books, I don't see what there is for us to talk about.

Anyway, I'm not interested in this debate, which has been held over and over now for decades upon decades. I won't be baited into wasting my time with it once more. All the arguments, and all the facts, are readily available to anyone who cares to look.

Dagoth Ur the USSR wasn't capable of accomplshing this in 1920. Not with the Entente supporting Poland.

rcorporon if you think that Stalin had absolute power in the USSR or that he was the only behind the purges, you are definetly wrong. Stalin-era politics were extremely Byzantine. The purges were simply the method for eliminating those who lost in the political game. They were not directed agaisnt a single group, nor were they directed by a single group. Nor did they start with Stalin. (or end with him for that matter)

Quote:

... uh if anything that sounds overly revolutionary (and in the case of Poland he was absolutely right). I wanna know what, exactly, was counter-revolutionary about Trotsky.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!

Or should I say