Molotov Remembers is my favourite source on what led to Khrushchevism (and later Brezhnevism). Is interviews/memoirs of a guy who was there and has the guts to admit when he thinks he and Stalin messed up, and also because Molotov has a fairly conversational style making it readable (however this and the way the book is organised means the analysis is scattered throughout the text). He emphasises theoretical errors among leadership (and consequently incorrect leadership given to the state) as a huge issue.

He emphasises that, much as Khrushchev is wrong to blame everything on Stalin, it would also be wrong to blame everything on Khrushchev—Molotov maintains that the seeds of Khrushchevism must be sought in the Stalin period (i've edited it to break up the paragraphs a bit for ease of reading):

"The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" was discussed at Stalin's dacha. "Any questions, comrades? Have you read it?" He gathered together the members of the Politburo, some seven or eight people. "What do you think about it? Any comments?" We said something or other. I mentioned something not terribly important.

Now I confess, we underestimated the work. We should have gone into it more thoroughly. But no one as yet understood this. Unfortunately, people were bad at theory.

The more familiar I become with Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism," the more defects I find in it. I reread it today. How could he write: "It is obvious that after the disintegration of the world market, the spheres of exploitation of the world's resources by the major capitalist countries, the USA, Britain, and France, will contract, yet the cyclical character of the development of capitalism, the growth and contraction of production, will nevertheless be preserved." This is true. But further on-and this was written in 1952-"However, the growth of production in these countries will take place on a narrower base, because the volume of production in these countries will contract." But nothing of the kind has occurred.

Chuev, the interviewer, asked: "Was Khrushchev adept in matters of theory?"

No. He was extremely weak in that regard. We were all "practicals ," all practitioners. Before the Revolution we read all the books and newspapers, now we read nothing. Had I not spent so long in prison and exile, I wouldn't know many things either! I read publications written by our opponents too, and we had to participate in heated discussions.

Chuev asked Molotov: "Is it true that after XIXth Congress [1952] Stalin said we had built a military-industrial dictatorship instead of socialism?"

He said something else. In private conversation he confessed that we no longer had a dictatorship of the proletariat. He didn't state this firmly, but he said it. Only to me. Perhaps he was testing me, or perhaps he was trying to understand something himself.

If you read our constitution thoroughly you will see that it contains many points which contradict the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course, it's all said in a very transparent form. There is something like this: our Soviet power was born in 1917 as the dictatorship of the proletariat and became the power of all the toilers.

Notice, "all the toilers." That is why our country is administered by Soviets of Toilers' Deputies. Soviets have existed and remain, but they used to be Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies, fundamentally Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. But this class division no longer exists. In my opinion this is a revision in diluted form: not the dictatorship of the proletariat but power of the toilers.

Khrushchev gathered writers together one day at Stalin's remote dacha, two hundred kilometers from Moscow. There he announced for all to hear that he had differences of opinion with me. His move particularly displeased me because he announced it at a nonparty gathering. It all started with an article in the journal Kommunist in 1955, where I argued that we had constructed only the foundations of socialism in our country. Shortly before that I had gathered reporters and distributed the article to them. There were some queries on the article. But I said I believed that socialism in our country was not yet complete

Chuev said, "Under Khrushchev, Molotov was reproached for saying that in our country, only the "basis of socialism" had been constructed and not "socialism basically, " and he confessed his mistake in the journal of the Central Committee, Kommunist."

No, I had to. They forced me to. At a session of the Supreme Soviet I delivered a report on the international situation. By the way, I still believe that both conclusions were correct. Then, a letter signed by Pospelov and Rumiantsev was published. They contended that "socialism basically" and its "basis" had been built long ago. I then said at the Politburo: "I don't see any contradiction in terms there. One can say that both "socialism basically" and "basis" have been built. "Basis" is a narrower concept, which places greater emphasis on the economic side of things. "Basis" or "basically"-just so much talmudic hairsplitting. I wrote that both formulations were correct, consequently there could be no objections to my position as being incorrect, because "basis" is the same as "basically." To see a difference between the two one would have to be a pedant.

At that time Khrushchev started undermining you.

Why started? He had always been doing that.

They seem to have been eager to incriminate you somehow. They launched a campaign against you.

Not just over some issue or another. Not just any issue. This question was absolutely crucial. To say that socialism had triumphed completely and definitely was to oversimplify our achievements, and this contradicted Marxism-Leninism. No one wants to dig into this now, but exasperation with this situation is sure to mount. Younger people will take up the issue and agree that the wrong conclusion had been drawn...

Another of the interviewers, Ivanovich, said: "We have brought an end to class struggle,"

We have not yet brought an end to anything.

Within the country.

Even within the country we have brought nothing to an end. We have only laid the foundations.

Khrushchev said we have completed the edifice.

It was not completed under Khrushchev, and it is still not completed. Quite the contrary, the ideology contained in the party program only hampers progress.

Good heavens! The program is incorrect!

Not just incorrect, it impedes the building of socialism. The workers toil and move the cause forward; the peasants, kolkhozniki, work slowly but are advancing. They lack genuine leadership. In reality the people are preoccupied with problems of daily life. A socialism in which money dominates is not the socialism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. There is no such socialism. Just try to find it. Yet in our country such "socialism" exists. There is no genuine socialism in which two kinds of property exist, neither in Marx, Engels, and Lenin nor in a developed, completely built socialism. Instead of overcoming these vestiges of the transitional period, we have preserved them and applied the brakes to further progress. And we claim we are already building communism. It's absurd. That's what this ideology leads to.

In "Economic Problems of Socialism, " didn't Stalin address this problem correctly?

Correctly. He started off cautiously, but in the end he took a firm position. He alone addressed the question correctly. We didn't understand all of it back then. He made some mistakes, and I called them to his attention. He let me read the manuscript of a part which was then published, and the second part on which he was still working. But I repeat: there is nothing in Marx, Engels, and Lenin to suggest that you can have socialism while money, the purse, holds sway.

The kolkhoz is a transitional, and only a transitional, form. No socialism, no complete socialism, exists while there are two forms of property, state and cooperative. Yet we say that we have a developed socialist society, delude ourselves in this manner when in fact we are slamming on the brakes. We must liquidate this delusion and unleash the full energy of the people. This step will turn things white-hot but will work itself out.

Nevertheless, our present leadership [under Brezhnev and Kosygin] doesn't understand this, while those who slip them ineffectual memoranda are simply mindless, petty bourgeois ideologists. We have only built the foundations; true, this is irreversible. But lo and behold, they proclaim: "This is developed socialism! Let us pass on to communism!" and so forth. We are passing on to nothing.

Look, Brezhnev, in spite of himself, is one of those leaders who doesn't understand this, one of those who live according to a vulgar, petty bourgeois ideology. We have a lot of that around in our country, and it cannot but impede progress. Most interesting is the fact that you won't find any serious people pondering this problem. Have you heard of anyone who says that we must somehow change so as to build the socialism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin? You won't find such a person.

But how to change, begin with what, with the kolkhozes or what?

Yes, with the kolkhozes. 1/3

Roland Boer's Socialism in Power is critically necessary for anyone wanting to understand the evolution and development of socialist democracy. An example of the weakening of functional democracy under Khrushchev in particular include a requirement of constant turnover in communist party membership over and above what would naturally be recalled by the working classes, resulting in an erosion of discipline in the communist party. This was a consequence of Khrushchev's line that class struggle was over in the USSR.