I think the main things to understand are, first, that the SU was already mainly controlled by revisionists before Stalin even died, reducing Stalin to a borderline figurehead for revisionists to work under. Secondly, the Secret Speech included extensive deception in its accusations against Stalin and co., with a very long list of supposed crimes that were "not previously known" because they either didn't happen at all or didn't happen as Khrushchev depicted them, which contributed to making Stalin look monstrous and therefore make destalinization look appealing. Third, Khrushchev purged high-profile supporters of Stalin, most notably Beria, which really made it less viable and less appealing to oppose destalinization. Lastly he kind of did get pressured out of office eventually, not because of destalinization but for the adjacent reason that he just kind of didn't know what he was doing, which is only to be expected from someone like him.

If one is trying to define liberalism against feudalism, that definition is fine, but it's just redditor sophomorism to act like a dictionary is a replacement for an actual historical or academic definition of a political tendency.

You clearly don't have an adequate appreciation for how bad golf is if you think this is an appropriate comparison

"Running against capitalism but not the Ukraine war" is a good sign, at least

A fan of martial arts, Kharitonov managed a collective farm in Siberia during the Soviet era. Following the end of socialism in the USSR, he joined the Agrarian Party, one of the political groups that emerged from the destruction of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

I'm going to be so mad if he ends up being a revisionist or something

Farming issues remain an interest of his. This week at a CPRF conference, Kharitonov praised the collectivization of Soviet agriculture in the 1930s as a “correct reform that allowed us to resolve the food problem on the eve of a great war,” referring to Hitler’s invasion in 1941.

ok . . . and that's basically the last thing it says about him, so as far as the content of the article goes, he's totally worth supporting

Bay of Pigs, first as tragedy, then as farce, now as whatever this is.

If he won the election, he won the election. Term limits are mainly a tool of capital, since capital does not have term limits.

and come to some terms/ reality.

Imagine telling this to someone when France was under occupation by Germany

Che wasn't a mercenary, he would have been plenty comfortable staying in Cuba but went to help revolutionary movements elsewhere (sometimes in an alarming degree of isolation). If anything, he was closer to being a volunteer.

In the words of Knuckles the Echidna: "The communists are censoring you? Damn, I wish it worked. Shut the fuck up."

the only viable left leaning political party in the US?

If you mean the Democrats (which you must to say ""viable"") you are too lost in the sauce.

"Come on guys, we should back the Strassers. They aren't perfect but come on!"

Would you support a policy of student loan forgiveness for only white people?

Vietnam has some beefs with China, but I think it's a bit more up in the air than that which way they'd turn since it'd be a real existential threat to them to militarily oppose China like that (plus they do have some productive deals with China).