What was the real meaning of destalinization, from social point of view?

Khrushchev has left a lot of unsolved problems, but he was not the only person, totally responsible for this. He made attempts to inject some elements of democracy into the system not by the price of repressions and new victims. He created a new clear system of judgment and so called “burlaw courts”, which worked for many years in USSR. But the majority of decisions which proved to be lethal for social ideology of USSR were made at Khrushchev and Brezhnev’s times, indicating their weak opportunities as leaders of the country. Strong system of administration and management represented by members of Communist Party, who were thoroughly selected by Stalin’s repressions, still worked at Khrushchev’s times, but became more and more opened to making democratic discussions.

Withdrawal of Khrushchev and replacing him with Brezhnev was carried out like a good play in a good theatre. Khrushchev’s «upheaval» was first of all in social policy, but Brezhnev’s «upheaval» was only for higher levels of power. Brezhnev’s style of administrating proved to be accommodative: the Highest Power did not try with strategic and political reformations, it tried to accommodate to objective circumstances in the country. One more feature of brezhnevism — administrative-bureaucratic system was growing more and more powerful and taking place of Stalin’s autocracy. And one more feature — the apparatus of Communist Party became the main basis, the core and skeleton of whole system of power and administration. Brezhnev’s times are characterized with the principle of “stability of the manpower”, his main reforms were connected with militarization of soviet economy, and the most terrible results of these changes were incredibly increased corruption, especially in bodies of administration and growing abyss between highest and lowest social levels of  people. From sociological point of view, Brezhnev’s times were just continuation of Khrushchev’s period, but without extremism and adventurism of the latter. Policy of Communist Party of Brezhnev’s times, directed onto being in command of intellectual elite of society, controlling it and dominating over it, can historically be considered as tendency to refer back to Stalin’s methods of administrating.

Even after actual death of Stalin, Stalinism was not totally collapsed, as nowadays anti-Stalinists and anti-communists try to prove. It changed its form and remained as autocracy of communist leaders and power, playing its important role in soviet society.  Stalin had a sheer imperial political way of thinking, and he began creating a great empire with strong national principles, which, unfortunately, were not totally supported with wise and sagacious decisions of his successors. Khrushchev, together with denunciation and rejecting of Stalin’s autocracy principles rejected also national ideas in many aspects, later on administration of Brezhnev demonstrated understanding of Stalin’s intentions of creating a great nation. Summarizing abovestated, attempts of Stalin’s successors to undertake reforms were mainly short-termed solutions. The fundamental changes were rarely brought up and they mostly failed due to leftovers of Stalinism in the Communist Party, which was mostly the lack of trust between party members- the paranoia of being tested by others to reveal personal thoughts and then be possibly punished for it. This feature of Stalin and post-Stalin times remained for long in minds, and was obstacle for futher development of the country and improvements in its social system.