Posted on 03/05/2006 6:39:16 PM PST by voletti
n history, some events at first appear insignificant, or their significance is hidden, but they turn out to be earthshaking. Such a moment occurred 50 years ago, with Nikita Khrushchev’s so-called “secret speech” to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It ranks, I believe, just below the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the start of Hitler’s War in 1939 as the most critical moment of the 20th century.
At that moment, the communist movement appeared to be riding the tide of history, and not only for those in the Soviet Union. In the mid-1950s, communism was on the offensive in Europe, as well as in the emerging Third World. Capitalism seemed to be dying. All of communism’s imperfections were deemed temporary, just bumps on the way to the just society that was then being born. A third of humanity saw the Soviet Union as leading the world toward global socialism.
The 20th Congress put an end to that. It was a moment of truth, a cleansing from within of the brutality of Stalinism. Khrushchev’s speech to the Congress inspired doubt and second thoughts throughout the worldwide Communist movement.
Khrushchev’s motives as he took the podium on the morning of February 25, 1956, were, in his mind, moral ones. After his ouster from power, in the seclusion of his dacha, he wrote: “My hands are covered with blood. I did everything that others did. But even today if I have to go to that podium to report on Stalin, I would do it again. One day all that had to be over.”
Khrushchev had, of course, been an intimate part of Stalin’s repressions, but he, too, didn’t know half of what was going on. The whole Stalinist system of government was built on absolute secrecy, in which only the general secretary himself knew the whole story. It wasn’t terror that was the basis of Stalin’s power, but his complete monopoly on information. Khrushchev, for example, was stunned when he discovered that some 70 percent of Party members were annihilated in the 1930s and 1940s.
Initially, Khrushchev didn’t plan to keep his denunciation of Stalin a secret. Five days after the Congress, his speech was sent to all the leaders of the socialist countries and read at local party meetings across the Soviet Union. But people didn’t know how to discuss it. And with good reason, for the problem with the de-Stalinisation process was that, although the truth was partly revealed, no answer regarding what to do next was offered.
After the Congress, it became clear that the communist gospel was false and murderously corrupt. But no other ideology was offered, and the crisis — the slow rot of the system that became clear during the era of stagnation under Leonid Brezhnev — that began with Khrushchev’s speech lasted another 30 years, until Mikhail Gorbachev took up his mantle of change.
The doubts inspired at the Congress may have been inchoate, but they nonetheless sowed genuine unrest. In the first protests that rocked the communist world in 1956, huge crowds in Georgia demanded that Khrushchev be fired and Stalin’s memory reinstated. An uprising in Poland and the far more tumultuous Hungarian Revolution argued for the opposite. The Poles demanded communism with a human face, and the Hungarians, after Imre Nagy sought to reform communism, ended up wanting no communism at all.
All of these protests were brutally crushed, which resulted in many West European Communists leaving the Party in utter disillusion. Khrushchev’s speech also ignited the feud between Mao’s China and the USSR, for it allowed Mao to claim the crown of world revolutionary leadership.
Worried by the protests, Khrushchev tried to cool off the anti-Stalin campaign. The release of the Gulag prisoners that followed his speech continued, but it was done in silence. Party membership was restored to purge survivors, and they received new jobs, but they were forbidden from discussing the horrors that they had endured.
That silence lasted until 1961, when Khrushchev permitted new revelations of Stalin-era crimes. These were publicly reported and discussed on TV and radio. Stalin’s body was removed from Red Square, Stalin monuments were destroyed, and cities restored their original Soviet names. Stalingrad became Volgograd.
The idea of the Gulag entered our literature with Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. This second anti-Stalinist campaign lasted two years, which was not nearly enough to change the country’s mentality.
The 20th Congress shattered the world Communist movement, and it turned out to be impossible to cement the cracks. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries faced a crisis of faith, as the main threat to communism was not imperialism, or ideological dissidents, but the movement’s own intellectual poverty and disillusion.
So, although it is common today in Russia to blame Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin for the collapse of the USSR, it is both useless and unfair to do so. The system was dead already, and it is to Yeltsin’s great credit that he was able to bring Russia out of the ruins in one piece. Although Russia’s future is uncertain, its history is becoming clearer, in part because we now know that the 20th Party Congress started the process that brought about the end of Soviet despotism. —DT-PS
Interesting that Khrushchev died on September 11th of 1971.
Might you say an "intellectual" is a learned fool?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579182/posts
Russia: Khrushchev's 'Secret Speech' Remembered After 50 Years
And as time progressed, it became increasingly difficult for the Politburo and the inner Communist Party to hold its death grip on whom they governed--until the very cores that held their system shattered under its own weight.
Reagan did have a big role in accelerating its demise.
How can this be?
Simple. Socialism isn't communism. Socialism isn't Marxism. Socialism isn't even American Liberalism. But all three are different faces off the same body--Socialism.
Socialism is a broad word that implies any economic or political system (or ideology) in which the state is the primary determinant of the economic, political, and social decisions for a people--as opposed to a democracy or a true republic, where the people are the ultimate determinants of policy.
Thus Communism, American Liberalism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism, Islamism, totalitarianism, dictatorships, et al. are all considered to be Socialist in nature.
Exactly my point.
But the Soviet Union was propped up by leftists in the West.
Clearly that helped to sustain it, and one of the reasons why the USSR managed to last as long as it did. It took Reagan and the classification of the USSR as the Evil Empire to spur reforms in the Eastern Bloc--leading to people like Gorbachev. This in turn accelerated the death of the Soviet Union and brought the Cold War to an end with the US as the lone victor.
In my honest opinion, I believe that because we all know Reagan rebuilt the military, the economy, and the social orders back up to where it needed to be, mentioning this would be merely stating the obvious--especially when Soviet Russia was rightfully branded as the Evil Empire.
It is an extremely valid point nonetheless, and thank you for mentioning it.
I digress.
You are correct in saying that socialism isn't Marxist in and of itself. However, we all have to remember that Marxism is Socialism by definition and by nature, albeit one type of Socialism. The same holds true for Communism.
Socialism is the general group--much like how we'd define a car as a personal means of transportation. Communism, Marxism, etc. are merely specific brands of Socialism--in my car analogy, these would be the specific brand names (Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc.)
Socialism is different from what most of us think of when we hear socialism-- the latter is what you refer to. Thus confusion typically exists--even among scholars. Hence, let us differentiate Socialism and socialism. Common socialism is what we usually think of when we hear socialism. Socialism is the greater encompassment.
Having said that, Common socialism and Communism are different car models and Marxism leading to common socialism and ultimately Communism are both correct. But since Communism is Socialism, they are not two separate things--Communism is merely a specific kind of Socialism. Just like the American Left is another specific kind of Socialism.
"Unfortunately, sometimes the higher the intellect, the lower the common sense. Believe me."
Ha - thats the truth.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx - an anticommunist is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx"
President Ronald Reagan
"I suppose that Socialism existed prior to Marx, as in Plato's Utopia."
Whosawha??!?!???!
Do you mean Platos Republic? Platos dialectic is the exact opposite of Marx's material dialectic.
And Communism is never mentioned in Das Kapital - he talks about a Workers Paradise as the final state after Capitalismand Socialsim where people do what they want due to automation.
Platos Republic is really forecasts so many of the problems we are having today - right down to the mexican invasion.
Youre right - he did believe in ideals and perfection.
This si good because the sob Marx came along and turned it upside down saying in effect might makes right.
Thats why Marxist relativism is such a terrible affliction.
Platos Republic is really forecasts so many of the problems we are having today - right down to the mexican invasion.
Youre right - he did believe in ideals and perfection.
This is good because the sob Marx came along and turned it upside down saying in effect might makes right. Manifesto is a cop out when Marx realized that the Germany and England were not going to fold like a cheap camera, he modified theory to allow for communism to spring from less developed countries.
Thats why Marxist relativism is such a terrible affliction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.