I think that this is a particularly bureaucracy-centric reading of Soviet history, of which I am skeptical. The immediate post-Stalin elite (esp. Beria) was very radical. He was admittedly executed, but the changes even Khrushchev implemented were pretty radical. Not even Stalin ever dreamed of changing the direction of huge rivers. IMO Khrushchev was removed from power mostly because of his balls-up foreign policy and the craziness, rather than the radicalness, of his proposed projects (people still make jokes about the corn).
As an aside, I'll note that the Soviet leaders that Westerners give a + sign to are usually those that people in the former USSR give minusses to. Brezhnev and Andropov are very well liked, as is Stalin. Lenin, Krushchev, and Gorbachev, no. (As for Trotsky, don't make me laugh.)
--- On Wed, 5/6/09, farmelantj at juno.com <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
> From: farmelantj at juno.com <farmelantj at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] "I like rightists"
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 11:04 AM
>
> Well, I think a comparison of the
> situations that faced the bureaucracy
> in the Soviet Union following the
> death of Stalin, versus the situation
> that faced the Chinese bureaucracy following
> the death of Mao might be in order here.
> In both countries, the bureaucracies were
> seeking stability. The Soviet bureaucracy
> had suffered greatly under Stalin and
> so greeted Khrushchev's ascension into
> power with enthusiasm, especially when
> he talked about things like establishing
> norms of "socialist legality." Later on
> they soured on him when they perceived him
> to be shaking up the applecart a bit too
> much for their tastes. Hence, their later
> enthusiasm for Breshnev who wasn't interested
> in changing things very much in the Soviet
> Union.
>