Ignore the violent repression of eastern Europe, the subjugation of native populations in the south and east, the proxy wars and the sphere of influence and international power politics.
I’m having a hard time right now and you genuinely made me laugh, thank you!
If your entire understanding of the USSR came from decades of propaganda from its geopolitical enemies maybe you should look into how much of what you were taught was either interpreted in the worst way possible if not entirely made up. A lot of anti communist myths were started by the literal nazis but the west ran with them because they hate communism more than they hate mass genocide.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it’s your one and only comment in a one month old account.
You’re posting an article written during the height of the Sino-Soviet split, upholding the PRC which attacked Vietnam and upholded Pol Pot in Cambodia, sided with the US over the USSR, and took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
That was awfully fast reading for something I just posted a few minutes ago. Pretty sure you only skimmed over it instead of actually reading it. Otherwise you’d actually talk about the stuff written in it.
Their first part is about Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:
Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as “imperialism.” They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You’re upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot’s Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.
Absolutely hilarious!
Ignore the violent repression of eastern Europe, the subjugation of native populations in the south and east, the proxy wars and the sphere of influence and international power politics.
I’m having a hard time right now and you genuinely made me laugh, thank you!
If your entire understanding of the USSR came from decades of propaganda from its geopolitical enemies maybe you should look into how much of what you were taught was either interpreted in the worst way possible if not entirely made up. A lot of anti communist myths were started by the literal nazis but the west ran with them because they hate communism more than they hate mass genocide.
Thats not saying much tbf. They don’t hate mass genocide at all.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it’s your one and only comment in a one month old account.
Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
You’re posting an article written during the height of the Sino-Soviet split, upholding the PRC which attacked Vietnam and upholded Pol Pot in Cambodia, sided with the US over the USSR, and took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
That was awfully fast reading for something I just posted a few minutes ago. Pretty sure you only skimmed over it instead of actually reading it. Otherwise you’d actually talk about the stuff written in it.
Their first part is about Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:
Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as “imperialism.” They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You’re upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot’s Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.