That's not "pseudo-communism," though, that's just capitalism for the bourgeoisie.
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
No, this is wrong.
-
The Soviet economic system was federated and planned. The political control in Moscow wasn't absolute by any stretch.
-
The various Soviet Republics were not colonies, not by any stretch. Resources and goods were shipped around the whole system as needed, not just imported into Moscow.
-
There was no forcible cultural assimilation. There was a huge effort to cultivate a soviet identity, but there wasn't an attempt to erase cultural identity. The famine in the 1930s was caused by natural causes, not "demographic engineering," grain was re-allocated to Ukraine once it was known that there were famine conditions. There was forcible re-allocation of various ethnic groups like Koreans, which did exist, but this isn't the same claim you made either in scope or character.
So no. The USSR was not imperialist, not by the correct concept of imperialism as a form of international extraction, nor the vague "Soviet Bad" thing you tried to make it out to be.
Yep, tragic in retrospect.
Fantastic work, that really goes to show just what a mistake it was for Poland.
The US is absolutely an Empire, it practices imperialism, by which it extracts vast wealth from the global south. The USSR didn't do that.
Further, I'm absolutely focused on economics. The Soviet economy slowed, but was still growing. The dissolution of the USSR was multifaceted, complex, and not boiled down to one failure. Further, its conditions are entirely different from the US, which is a decaying Empire, the fruits of imperialism are diminishing and disparity is rising.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, economics are core to my analysis.
The US has always been a settler-colony, but it became more Imperialist after World War I with the inter-ally debts. It became world hegemon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however.
The USSR wasn't an Empire, which played into that. Further, the reforms it introduced weren't because it opened up too late, but because they played against the socialist system of planning. The PRC's approach to economic reform retained full state control and is focused on unity, rather than disunity, which is why it's working.
No, Tattorack is correct. Material conditions decaying makes it easier to topple, but Materialists know that without the working class organizing and acutally overthrowing the system, it won't fall. The system still has to be killed and replaced, otherwise it will linger on.
-
The areas the Soviets went after were largely territories Poland had annexed during the 1919 Polish-Ukrainian War, and included territories of modern day Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus. The Lithuanians in particular were ethnically oppressed by the nationalists in Poland.
-
Throughout the 1930s, the Soviets had tried to establish a joint French/British/Soviet/Polish defensive pact against Nazi invasion. Britain and France ignored the proposal, as they wished to see Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union destroy each other. Poland also ignored the negotiations, including the Soviet offer to send 1 million troops to Poland and France to help against possible invasion.
-
The Soviets entered Poland after the Nazis, by several weeks. They prevented Nazi Germany from taking the entirety of Poland, and, as per earlier, mostly stuck to territories Poland had invaded only 20 years earlier.
The Soviets and Nazis were never allies. They hated each other from the very beginning, and spent a long time preparing for war with the other. The Soviet Union in particular had to be careful, as it had an extremely short time spent on industrialization, which it began in earnest after toppling the Tsar, while Germany had a century of industrialization on its side.
They were never on the same side. There were numerous treaties with Britain, France, etc that the Soviets proposed in order to take on the Nazis together, but they were denied, as western Europe and the US were doing a ton of business with Nazi Germany and were more opposed to the soviets. In fact, Western Europe already signed numerous non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, similar to the soviet-Nazi pact, but far earlier. The soviet pact was made on the eve of war to buy time, the soviets and Nazis never trusted each other.
This is only more clear if you look into how each country portrayed the other in the 30s. Communism and fascism are, again, polar opposites in property relations, they hated each other. The Nazis even saw Slavic peoples as being genetically inferior. Marxists were always opposed to fascism, and that didn't change when the Nazis came to power. They were never on the "same side," the soviets only went into Poland weeks after the Nazis did.
When it came time for World War II, all of that tension came to a head. The Nazis despised the communists above all else, and unlike Britain and France, tried to commit genocide against them. The communists despised the Nazis, and liberated Berlin years later.
Yep, overall the Soviets paid by far the largest price, and were responsible for ~85% of Nazi deaths. This should be unsurprising for anyone, though, considering communism and fascism are polar opposites, the former throughly devoted to thr working class and the collectivization of property, the latter thoroughly devoted to violently retaining bourgeois property and killing all who are percived to risk that. Blackshirts and Reds is a good read.
On May 5th, 1818, Karl Marx, hero of the international proletatiat, was born. His revolution of Socialist theory reverberates throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of Capitalism, development of the theory of Scientific Socialism, and advancements on dialectics to become Dialectical Materialism, have all played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He didn't always rock his famous beard, when he was younger he was clean shaven!
Some significant works:
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Manifesto of the Communist Party (along with Engels)
And, of course, Capital Vol I-III
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
On April 22nd, 1870, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov "Lenin," hero of the Russian Revolution, and architect of the world's first Socialist state, was born. His contributions to the Marxist canon and to the revolutionary theory and practice of the proletariat throughout the world carries on to this day, in increasing magnitude. Every passing day, he is vindicated. His analysis of imperialism, the right of nations to self-determination, and revolutionary strategy have played a key role in the past century, and have remained ever-more relevant throughout.
He also loved cats!
Some significant works:
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don't know where to start? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
For good fun, here are a few of Lenin's most important contributions to Marxist theory, I highly recommend all of them (but Imperialism especially).
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (must read for any Leftist wanting to understand modern Capitalism, Anarchists included!)
Dr. Michael Parenti 1986 Lecture "Yellow Parenti"
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!
Interested in Marxism-Leninism? Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
Dr. Michael Parenti 1986 Lecture "Yellow Parenti"
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!
view more: next ›
Kinda? Communism is about satisfying the needs of everyone through sound economic planning and collectivized production, what you are describing is someone getting vast riches for free just because they own stuff. I'm being nitpicky, I'm aware.