Reddit reviews Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence That Every Revelation of Stalin's (and Beria's) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev's Infamous Secret Speech to the 20th Party ... is Provably False by Grover Furr (2011-05-03)

A lot of his articles can be found on his website for free. You can buy his extremely popular Khrushchev Lied on Amazon or from the publisher's site. He's also written The Murder of Sergei Kirov (or on Amazon).

Maybe. But the book he wrote seems real. http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Lied-Revelation-Khrushchevs-Communist/dp/061544105X

I'm no expert but I'll answer your questions as best as I can.

1. When I became a communist I too, was an anarcho-communist, but that was mostly because I didn't understand anarcho-communism and communist theory as a whole. Not to say you don't understand communism and your own ideology, I'm just gonna run down the reasons why I made the switch. What you (probably) define as anarcho-communism is the end-goal of Marxist-Leninism(on the right under definitions), but Marxist-Leninism has a sort of transition phase, in which the nation switches from whatever economic system it was previously under to socialism. The reason behind a slow transition to communism is because a communist society is a stateless society; in other words, a straight switch to communism in any nation would lead to a collection of communes suddenly becoming their own 'nations' for lack of a better word. As you can probably imagine, every other nation would be quick to take advantage of such a decentralized society. Let's imagine an anarcho-communist USSR, do you believe that every commune of this large nation would band together to fight Hitler? There is a chance they would, but there is a chance they wouldn't, and it wouldn't even matter if most of the communes joined the war-effort, if the ones in cities such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Volgograd didn't then the war would end before it began! I don't typically like making that kind of argument, as it relies on a lot of what-ifs, but I think it's important to think about that what-ifs when regarding ideological debates. Anywho, that would lead to the question of, when does a Marxist-Leninist society make the switch to communism? That comes from the idea of the Global Revolution, in which the entire world erupts into communist revolutions; the switch can only happen when the entire world becomes communist, otherwise, every non-communist nation will take advantage of each commune. TL;DR Anarcho-communists and Marxist-Leninists agree on what communism should look like, but anarcho-communists want to make a transition from having a state to not having a state, instantly; Marxist-Leninists want to implant a socialist society until the Global Revolution has run its course. But that doesn't really answer your question, why would we prefer to live under an authoritarian regime as opposed to a democratic nation? We don't, and we (arguably) have not. Forgive me for my ignorance on the matter of elections in the USSR, but I believe the system worked something like this: the workers would vote for a workers council(run's specific job...places), the worker's council would vote for an administrative soviet (state legislative), the administrative soviet would vote for the Congress of Soviets, which was the federal legislative body. It is, debatable, whether this system protects the democratic rights of the masses (I personally think it does) but it would be complete folly to say it was a dictatorship, and if it was, that would be the fault of opportunistic traitors to the revolution! TL;DR We don't.
   
2. There is no 'how to be a Marxist-Leninist/any form of communism that isn't anarchist' manifesto, we are all, sometimes regrettably, individuals. Becoming a Marxist-Leninist doesn't mean you have to defend Stalin any more than being in favor of democracy means you have to support Andrew Jackson. TL;DR No.
   
3. I'm new to the movement so I don't have a very good communist and/or non-communist reading list, but I'd be careful when trying to find a non-biased source, as in truth, there is no, and there will never be a non-biased source. Everybody came from a nation with an ideology, everybody grew up around people with beliefs, everybody has read things with an author, and thus, the only unbiased source a man can find in this world, are animals so ignorant of their own nature they surprise themselves with their hand's existence after each cycle of the moon! TL;DR Don't have any unbiased sources, but you could look at Grover Furr's Khrushchev Lied and then read this as an analysis of the previously mentioned book.
   
4. Solidarity amongst our Leninists, Maoists, Syndicalists, and even, our anarchists, is (arguably) the most important factor for the Global Revolution, whether it turns out to be peaceful or violent. Every communist can agree on one thing and that, is that we all want to see communism one day, and we want our children to never know of this morally bankrupt system we call capitalism. Right now, there are only 10 or so socialist nations in a world governed militarily, politically, diplomatically, and economically by capitalists. We speak of unionization, yet we fight over what name it should take! Ridiculous, is the word for it. Utterly ridiculous, and a line-of-thinking that may not just cost the spread of communism as a whole, but the freedom of the proletariat that every one of us preaches! I do not think that we should not argue or 'bicker' over ideology, as debate is necessary for any group to function, but these debates should be, just that, debates. It is, however, important to keep in mind there are blood-feuds between communists on the interior; for example, Trotskyites and Marxist-Leninists will never get along, and I think fairly reasonably so. Trotsky and his followers shamed the Soviet Union and provided much of the ammunition the West fires at us, Stalin, on the other hand, killed Trotsky and many of his followers along with him. (To any Marxist-Leninists out there, I know, Stalin was quite justified in his purges, but, for the sake of argument I'm pulling a bit of an r/ENLIGHTENDCENTRISM) Clearly there is a real feud there, one that can not be solved by saying, "let's just go out for a couple of cold ones, alright?" but, the feud should not go as far as siding with Hitler over Stalin because you're a Trotskyite. TL;DR Pan-leftism is important when battling fascists, imperialists, capitalists, etc., but debate within the party is necessary, along with some feuds between sects being valid.

Thank you! Work of this type is great. Many people seem to take Trotsky's words for granted that Stalin came along and messed everything up. The Vietnam War page is great stuff as well.

I think I'll pick up his book at some point.

Actually everything you have learned during the cold war was wrong. US media may have had a reason for distorting the history of the Soviet Union.

http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Lied-Revelation-Khrushchevs-Communist/dp/061544105X

https://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Lied-Revelation-Khrushchevs-Communist/dp/061544105X

Ok so here's another book my internet and late stage capital addled powerful brain coughed up. Once again, not a historian, you're right, but he cites his sources and discrediting him based on his lack of pedigree is kind of nonsensical and almost classist.

Do you think I have a degree of any kind, besides a high school one? Because I don't. Everything I know about politcal and economic theory, as well as left history, I had to learn on my own. I'm to understand I'm an autodidact.

Edit: fucked up typing and posting to quck.

I believe that Bureaucratic class in Russia could be Imperialist and do other bad stuff too. Humans are often violent creatures.

This doesn't change that almost every cruel act that Stalin was accused of, including Katyn Massacre in Poland, has been debunked. Khrushchev's attacks on Stalin were addressed in Krushchev Lied and the Katyn Massacre was addressed explicitly in The Mystery of the Katyn Massacre

So most of the claims of psychopathic actions by Stalin are proven false and there are many widely supported histories of him, both personal and officially recorded actions, being a competent and detail-oriented organiser and engineer with great empathy for his people, great diligence, and frugality.

I just ask you to read Krushchev Lied and see what you think. That's all.

I would like to understand better the details of how life under communism in non-Russian Soviets was inferior to that of Russia.

If you have a book I could read how Communism in Poland in particular but also other non-Russian Soviets had worse conditions than Communism in Russia because of Russian resource extraction can you please provide a reference? I would like to read about it. It is a priority for me to read books that are written by an author who is not explicitly anti-communist and who focuses on primary sources (government records, etc) and statistical data instead of only testimonials.