While my own work does not deal with the USSR, I think that my research area is well suited to answer this question. My particular work revolves around deindustrialization at a local steel plant between the years 1955 and 2001 - an area where "living memory" is still very relevant to the subject.

I notice that in your initial comment, you take issue with the fact that first-hand accounts are not accepted as legitimate scholarly "fact" here on Reddit. As an oral historian, I can definitely see the reasons for this. Although many people can experience a similar historical event, the framing of that event often tells us more about that particular source's "life story" and reflections upon present conditions than it does about the actual "historical facts" or the "real truth" (if such a thing even exists, which many would argue it does not - or at least to a meaningful extent in historical work, but I digress).

Oral histories can be considered like any other type of "primary source" material, such as letters, newspapers, autobiographies, and so on. Paul Thompson attacks the notion that oral histories are implicitly "biased" in his 1978 book, The Voice of the Past. Oral sources revolve around narrative, recollection and memory - Thompson argues that even when alternative versions of the same event are recalled, it prompts novel questions surrounding historical interpretations. Here, then, we see how firsthand accounts don't work as "history" in and of themselves; rather, they are sources for historians to combine with other information to figure out the meanings and repercussions of past experiences and events. Just as an historian wouldn't take a single letter from the past and say, "this letter tells us exactly what happened," they analyze and question oral history sources to reveal how a portion of the past was experienced through one person's perceptive "lens."

More recently, Alessandro Portelli might have put this even better; he writes, "it is no longer a question of “whether to believe” oral sources. Rather, oral historians concern themselves with examining the meanings that exist behind informants’ experiences; instead of seeking the “truth of what happened,” oral historians attempt to expose the construction and re-construction of historical memory. Methodologically, the language, tone, volume, and body language of an informant are all important to the conveyed meaning of a narrative. In oral history, we have begun moving away from simple text-based transcripts in order to be able to fully read the "meanings" of any given story - this is done with the use of digital recording and analytical software, for example.

It's also important to remember that in this type of history it isn't necessarily important whether the informant is objectively "right or wrong;" but about how historical understandings are shaped in the context of peoples' lives. To answer your question, yes - anecdotal "stories" are primary sources - but they are not capital-H-"History" in themselves, they still require "mediation" through the work of an historian (although, there is a wider discussion about "sharing authority" that launches from this point). And, as Paul Thompson reminds us, the notion of some standard of "historical objectivity" that other primary sources enjoy while oral testimony does not is something of a false dichotomy; traditional sources, too, rely on personal experience and the relaying of information, whether through text, photograph, or some other medium.

For these reasons, I understand why AskHistorians seeks the input of professional historians while ousting "primary source" oral history testimony. Just as I wouldn't expect to simply post a letter from the Bonnie Prince as an answer to a question regarding the '45 rebellion, a single persons' oral history testimony for a more recent event cannot be considered "authoritative" on its own. Certainly it is useful for historians, especially in my own work, but the medium of Reddit makes it difficult to vet and frame these stories appropriately. If you have any other questions or want me to elaborate on anything, just let me know.

For sources, see:

Alessandro Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli and other stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History (New York, State University of New York Press, 2001)

Alessandro Portelli, They Say in Harlan County: An Oral History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Paul Thompson, The Voice of the Past: Oral History (London: Oxford University Press, 1978)