# Remembering Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

In 1960 the world shaked under the shoe-banging incident of Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader. Everyone deplored the lack of manners shown by this Russian Communist bear. Nowadays, what do we have to think of slogans against President Obama in the Washington Underground ("Go to ****, Barack")? What about this judge in Montana 'joking' about President Obama's mother? Really, what has happened to civil behaviour in the US? Has the world turned round?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

We've really just seen a loss of the "polite society" facade people used to put on, not any kind of degradation in human nature. People now feel free to express their views publicly as crudely as people have always done privately. Be happy you're free to do so without disappearing the next day like in the good old USSR.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

While I agree with Couchie that it is nice to be able to express oneself without fear of punishment. I still wish people would show some restraint and respect for others. The kind of remarks made about Obama and other public figures publicly do not add anything to the political debate. Social manners ease everyone's passage through life.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

In some ways, things are more PC than ever, you know. Certain things are very out in the open, others are very scandalous to talk about.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

When PC replaced CC (common courtesy) civilization took another step down the hill. There may have been a time when insult-at-a-distance was a symptom of cowardice. Now it's only an indication of a slack jaw.

In public at least, Khrushchev was not cowardly; but a a poor prognosticator.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

^^^^^
You geezers are always saying things are going downhill though.

Not to derail the thread.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> ^^^^^
> You geezers are always saying things are going downhill though.
> 
> Not to derail the thread.


Based on the record, all civilizations eventually go downhill, if not destroyed first; it's called decadence. The current one (it's worldwide now y'know) is 'a-slippin' and a-slidin'.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Based on the record, all civilizations eventually go downhill, if not destroyed first; it's called decadence. The current one (it's worldwide now y'know) is 'a-slippin' and a-slidin'.


Well, I guess I prefer not to think about it, there's nothing I can do.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I reckon Khrushchev was one of the more "human" Soviet leaders. Well, compared to Stalin before he was, definitely. Same with his successor, Brezhnev, who cared little for the poeple, being driven around in his fancy & expensive Western cars while most Russians were waiting in bread lines. Brezhnev actually ousted Khrushchev, for partly reasons that Nikita was getting too liberal, and put him under virtual house arrest for the rest of his life. Krushchev was no saint, but he did do things like put an emphasis on putting more consumer goods on the shelves of shops and developing agriculture after what Stalin did (or didn't do, eg. in the 1930's millions starved to death under his rule - in Ukraine, incidentally, & Khrushchev was from there).

I can go on and on. That image is a stereotype of the man. Even Gorbachev said that, when he was young and growing up, young intellectuals like him kind of looked up to Khrushchev as offering potential for reform of the Soviet system, make it more human & practical. It didn't happen soon enough, Brezhnev got in the seat & the whole country stagnated when development could have happened. What a shame.

In a word, I agree with manners being very important. Communication, which manners are part of, is THE most important thing imo, no matter if you're president or a lawyer, office worker, cleaner, storeperson, whatever. Funnily enough, I've met a fair few cleaners in my life who are far better communicators than some highly educated people, who basically need to learn some basic manners. Maybe it's too late, their parents should have taught them at age 5?...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm kind of limited in sympathy to Khrushchev since he himself assumed power by conspiring and murdering Stalin's front-running heir, Lavrentiy Beria. Beria himself was the architect behind many of Stalin's purges and a rampant rapist. The Soviets were a fun bunch.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^If anyone deserved to be executed, it was Beria. In any case, throughout his rule, Khrushchev always had the Stalinists on his back (eventually they got rid of him and put "their man" in the seat, the much more conservative Brezhnev). It is all relative after all. As I said, he was no saint, but better than some of the alternatives (eg. the likes of Beria, who as you suggest was not a nice man to say the least).

& in terms of the arts in the Soviet Union, & esp. our main concern here of music, Khrushchev's policies of some liberalisation - including the arts - did have positive effect. Eg. works by Shostakovich that had been banned or never performed under Stalin where performed under Khrushchev. Also, Stravinsky went there for his 80th birthday in 1962, and his _Rite of Spring _and other works were performed, some for the first time on Russian soil. Khrushchev probably was not that much interested in classical music, but he was at least not totally against supressing some form of more progressive artistic development, expression, etc...


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

In some ways Khrushchev was much more radical communist in comparison with Brezhnev. He was a militant atheist and fight strongly to destroy the remains of Orthodox Church organistion, while Brezhnev mostly stopped anticlerical fighting and let old women to visit church. It is still so in Russia - mostly old exhausted women go to church. Khrushchev tried to fight against it, but the later government put a blind eye on it.

There were a lot of very violent riots in Khrushchev's time. Some of them (a riot of students in Georgia) were Stalinistic. Some of them were riots of factory workers against of expensieve prices (in Novocherkask). Those factory workers belived that the bread was cheaper in late Stalin's era. 

Khrushchev tried to help peasants (who were robbed by Stalin) by making purchasing the price bigger, but factory workers begame angry because of that. They wanted low prices! Alas, you can not please everyone. 

And if you begin to make economical changes, poor people (and most of them were and still are poor) become angry.

So, Brezhnev decided not to change anything. Some people - esp. poor and socially unprotected ones - still praise him for that, alas!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

In my opinion none of those Soviet crooks deserve ever being remembered, if only as anti-examples.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Moscow-Mahler said:


> ...
> Khrushchev tried to help peasants (who were robbed by Stalin) by making purchasing the price bigger, but factory workers begame angry because of that. They wanted low prices! Alas, you can not please everyone.
> 
> And if you begin to make economical changes, poor people (and most of them were and still are poor) become angry.
> ...


Well that's a good point, after a period of a lot of reform, or more reform and change (eg. as with Khrushchev), people do want less of it. More stability, or stagnation, in any case, not experimentation. & that's what they got with Brezhnev, as you suggest.

With today's election result, Mr. Putin winning the elections in your country, I can't help but think the cycle is similar. I think he's president the second time now, after having a guy warm the seat for him? People often want the status quo, they don't want a guy to rock the boat too much. It explains many things in Australian politics as well, but I won't go on to bore you...


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

In fact I think that people and country need well-thought-out reforms. But sometimes, instead of that kind of reforms, they get some very strange things, as in 1990s. What we had in 1990 was far from deep reforms, it was mostly the transformation of Soviet elite into post-Soviet elite.

There are a lot of books about this period, including some books by *Paul Klebnikov* - a very talented American journalist of Russian origin, who was killed.

I am not a big fan of Brezhnev, of course. There were some small attemps to reform something (connected with the name with M.Kosygin), but they were too small.

Khrushchev has a holeric temper, a good thing for a reformer, but he was undeducated and I am afraid he was not ready to do something also.

***
*About Putin.* I am not big fan of him. I always supported Gr. Yavlinsky. At these elections I voted for Mikhail Prokhorov. He got about 8 percents. Which is a good result, I suppose.

I think that most middle-class young and middle-aged people are tired of Putin. Or even hate him. And I think that even working-class people *do not believe in that "stability" myth anymore*.

That's why there were a lot of Putinist propaganda on our TV. And that's why they tried to prevent some students from going to elections. It is difficult to explain, but some students did not have an opportunity to elect, because they are not from Moscow and they had some problems.

I think that Putin was afraid that young well-educated people would not vote for him.

Putin is also spend a lot of money for his own youth organisations. He also gave money to some well-known artists, so they support him on tv.

So, I suppose that people do not believe in that stabilisation myth anymore


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

Putin and Medvedev decided to change their positions:








Putin (after he was hissed off during the MMA fight he visited): "Well, no one will recognise me in that wig!"


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

There is a story that when Josef Stalin lay on his death bed and the entire Politburu were gathered around the bed Stan beckoned Hitita over to his bedside and motined hin to lean close. Stalin then whispered in his ear "Nitita, Get you damned foot off the air hose".


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> ^^^^^
> You geezers are always saying things are going downhill though.
> 
> Not to derail the thread.


Have alook around you if you ever get away from this screen!


----------

