You're viewing a single thread.
Can I have a serious question? Are you guys real? Or am I just not on the joke?
I do not like US, but being someone from country controled by USSR. There were ton of people arested just for publicaly saying "Goverment bad".
Please don't discredit me, compared to US, I would be considered socialist and by US right wing maybe communist, but claiming that USSR or current Russia are your friends seems insane.
Yes, Lemmygrad is explicitly communist.
Countries weren't controlled by the USSR, they were a member state of the USSR and had input on democratic central planning and decisions. Please feel free to provide documentation if you feel that my worldview is incorrect.
Modern Russia and the USSR are two entirely different issues.
I'll push back on this maybe they were controlled by the ussr. However like, is thst not better than the alternatives. The local bourgeoisie were so good? Or the nazis? Or thr Americans? Sovereignty is a myth and mostly harmful to the citizens of places that have it. Like, what freedom does it bring people that their government can decide how to opress them?
Oh bunch of rus trolls, and us teenagers who think living under cccp was good.
Xddddd
Capitalist tool.
Assalamualaikum brother mustafa, it seems that Allah SWT didn't bless you with intelligence. Please read more books, inshallah you will be a better person
Countries weren't controlled by the USSR, they were a member state of the USSR and had input on democratic central planning and decisions.
So countries that were forcibly integrated, like the Baltic states, weren't controlled? Then why couldn't they leave the union?
They could. Article 17 of the 1936 Constitution (can be found on https://marxists.org > English > History > Soviet Union > Soviet Government) explicitly allowed every Republic to secede from the U.S.S.R.
So why didn't they? Clearly they never wanted to be a part of the union because prior to WW2 the foreign policy of those countries was neutrality. They created the Baltic entente and at end the of 1938 all three countries passed neutrality laws, Here's the Estonian law. Furthermore after the union collapse all three countries designated the soviet era as an era of foreign occupation. Which part of of history gives you the indication that they actually wanted to be in the union?
Well, why didn't they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR? And the people and the leaders who got what they wanted when they left:
- Now have the power to be the dominant voice, and
- Continue to say what they used to say now that they had power?
You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US, soYou probably know that capitalist states are run by a minority of wealthy people. It's the same in post-Soviet capitalist states, right? (Like Russia, whichwe agreeis a capitalist hellhole like every other capitalist state.)If you're still with me, could it be that a minority of liberals who complained about 'conditions' in the USSR are the same minority of liberals who today praise capitalism and criticise/slander the USSR?
Edit: realised I was talking to a different person.
Well, why didn’t they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR?
Are you open to the possibility that the USSR weren't the good guys and didn't allow those countries to leave? Because the rest of what you're saying is on the premise that the USSR had to have been the good guys.
You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US
Maybe the other guy said that? I haven't said that.
Which do you think is more likely though?
That a union of nations that has been dead for 30 years is still tricking people with evil commie propaganda to make them think it was a fairly normal place, and not a pointlessly cruel hell on earth,
Or that the capitalist class, in the capitalist west, the US especially, the heart of global capitalism, would want its citizens to think that socialism never works and that the people should just resign themselves to a life under capitalism, the system in which they are in charge and benefit the most from? And so lie to their citizens in order to achieve this goal?
As I mentioned in the other comment, I'm pretty sure which is more likely because I actually live in one of those countries. I know the history of my country and the sentiment people have about the union. The regular folk who lived in that era don't really have anything good to say about the union. I'm pretty sure people who lived it trumps whatever alternate shit you've read on the web.
Just because Yeonmi Park lived in the DPRK doesn’t mean her obvious lies about her experience trump anything else
I just realised I was talking to two people and edited my comment.
My other points still stand. You've proved my point: there isn't a 'right' answer, there's only, like always, a class-based answer. If you believe the ruling class you reach one conclusion. If not, you reach a different conclusion.
It's up to you which side you find more authoritative. For me, I'm skeptical of every word that leaves the mouths or pens of people who keep the working class oppressed and living in shit conditions.
You could always ask the people who lived there during that era, which is what I've done. I live in one of those countries. I know how my parents and grandparents lived during the soviet era. I know how my wifes parents and grandparents lived. I've had discussions about the union with people who actually lived in the union. My opinion isn't some "choose which class answer you like", it's based on what people actually went through during that period. If you want to believe whatever you've read on the internet go ahead, but the truth from the actual proletariats (because none of them were capitalists, otherwise I'd not be talking to you as my grandparents or parents would be in Siberia, probably dead) is far from what you people here want to believe. None of them had anything good to say about the union. None of them wanted the union and once they were in the union at no point (until the very end) did they have an option to not be in the union.
While I believe that people had differing opinions (they always do), I find it hard to accept that your anecdotal evidence speaks for all of the Baltic states populations that lived under the USSR.
By reducing everyone's arguments against you to, "you just read what you did on the internet, I talked to real people therefore my argument is more valid", the stance that you're trying to take is not rooted in good faith.
Perhaps being able to cite surveys or census data, or at least some form of statistic, would add some foundation to your argument.
Not to mention that for us, these personal testimonies are just more statements read on the internet. By the standard set, we should treat them no differently to any other information found on the internet.
The Baltic states are pretty clearly in the camp of the collapse not being a bad thing.
If you talk to certain people in my country, they'll tell that neoliberalism has been a success because it lifted their standard of living. It doesn't make what they say generally true.
Lucky for you, your loved ones survived the shock therapy implemented from the 90s onwards. Then do a survey of the people who didn't survive. Or who had to leave. Or who were trafficked. Or who were bombed by NATO. Or whose shipyards and factories were asset stripped. Then speak to the people who lived under the Tsar or the Nazis or whoever else preceded the Soviets. Then find some people in Ukraine and Russia, who were comrades until the 90s, and ask them what it's been like in the slow, violent aftermath of letting the capitalists back in.
because none of them were capitalists, otherwise I’d not be talking to you as my grandparents or parents would be in Siberia, probably dead
Except if that followed logically, then who was it who took the post-Soviet states into capitalism? Not to mention that the fact that they survived leaves open the possibility that if they were 'capitalists' through that time, that 'capitalists' might not have probably died in Siberia.
Look, I'm not saying the USSR was perfect. I'm not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. I'm saying you need to understand that whether it's explicit or subconscious, you are doing a class analysis by virtue of living in a class society. Most of your information is shaped by the ruling class, which controls the production and distribution of knowledge. It's the same for the people you're going to talk to. You can't escape it. The ruling ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. Individual anecdotes based on an insignificant sample size of respondents doesn't change anything.
Lucky for you, your loved ones survived the shock therapy implemented from the 90s onwards. Then do a survey of the people who didn’t survive. Or who had to leave. Or who were trafficked. Or who were bombed by NATO. Or whose shipyards and factories were asset stripped. Then speak to the people who lived under the Tsar or the Nazis or whoever else preceded the Soviets. Then find some people in Ukraine and Russia, who were comrades until the 90s, and ask them what it’s been like in the slow, violent aftermath of letting the capitalists back in.
Well clearly also lucky for me to not have my ancestors be deported to Siberia. Soviet union did not come without costs either. Radical change will always have negative aspects. Ushering in socialism could arguably be considered just as violent as letting capitalism back in.
Except if that followed logically, then who was it who took the post-Soviet states into capitalism? Not to mention that the fact that they survived leaves open the possibility that if they were ‘capitalists’ through that time, that ‘capitalists’ might not have probably died in Siberia.
So we can say the USSR failed to create socialism? Because after half a century of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" the bourgeoisie still existed in those countries as none of them stayed socialist after the collapse.
Look, I’m not saying the USSR was perfect. I’m not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. I’m saying you need to understand that whether it’s explicit or subconscious, you are doing a class analysis by virtue of living in a class society. Most of your information is shaped by the ruling class, which controls the production and distribution of knowledge. It’s the same for the people you’re going to talk to. You can’t escape it. The ruling ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. Individual anecdotes based on an insignificant sample size of respondents doesn’t change anything.
The people I talked to, their ruling class for the majority of their life was the "proletariat" class. Their point of view of the world didn't magically change after the union collapsed and capitalism was introduced. If they can't be trusted to give accurate insight into how the world was back then then who can you trust?
You could always ask the people who lived there during that era, which is what I’ve done.
All nearly 1.6 million of them? Never mind that hundreds of thousands of people left after the USSR’s dissolution…
Your family in particular might not be particularly representative, or there might be other context we’re missing, such as why they wouldn’t want the USSR when it was increasing its people’s standard of living.
Why don't you give up Hawaii and Puerto rico which you illegally annexed ? What about Mexcian lands that you stole ? Baltic states were given up by Lenin to Germany in Brest treaty , they were vassals of Germany and became fascistic in later years , why would Soviet Russia give up Baltic states when they got it back from Germany in 1939?
Why don’t you give up Hawaii and Puerto rico which you illegally annexed ? What about Mexcian lands that you stole ?
How about you don't assume my nationality, my country isn't even close those areas. Also nice whataboutism.
Baltic states were given up by Lenin to Germany in Brest treaty ,
You do realize that there were wars of independence after that treaty, that ended up with new treaties? There was the treaty of Tartu between Estonia and Soviet union, the treaty of Riga between Latvia and Soviet union and the Moscow peace treaty between Lithuania and Soviet union. The Soviet union recognized the independence of those countries so the Brest treaty is irrelevant.
they were vassals of Germany and became fascistic in later years ,
I know people like you love to throw the word around but authoritarian is not the same as fascist. And I have no idea where you take that they were vassals of German. You're clearly not aware that the independence war in Estonia and Latvia wasn't just against the Soviet union, it was also against Germany, more specifically the Baltic Germans who were in the Baltische Landeswehr.
why would Soviet Russia give up Baltic states when they got it back from Germany in 1939?
This is so far into historical revisionism there's nothing to correct, it's complete fiction.
Maybe the part where there were still a lot of people even in 1991 that wanted to stay?
(Yes, there were also independence referendums in 1991, but you were asking why it didn’t happen earlier.)
Source: https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=su011991
I was asking why it didn't happen earlier because before the Union those countries were "We don't want to be in the union" and after the union those countries were "We said, we didn't want to be in the union". If before the union they didn't want to be in it and after the union they still said they didn't want to be in it then why should we assume that during the union they wanted to be in it? The answer is that they didn't, they simply weren't allowed to leave.
We said
Who is we? The bourgeoisie or the proletariat? There’s going to be severe conflicts of interest here.
The people
There are a ton of old as fuck Cuban-Americans and their children in Miami and elsewhere in the US who would swear a pledge before god himself that "the people" never wanted the revolution in Cuba.
And yet we know from every historical document available they these people are at best misled but usually just right wing liars who had their land confiscated (rightly btw. And compensated for! (Which I wouldn't have done- Castro was far too nice in that regard)) and they never stopped crying about their "stolen land." The irony being, yeah, it was stolen land. Stolen by them! Or their ancestors, their father or grandfather, anyway. Castro just helped return it to the rightful owners.
So you see why it's important to distinguish the cry-bully right wing fascist tears from the legitimate hardships of the workers who, yes, may well have suffered? But their suffering is almost always because of the US and allied European countries. It certainly wasn't caused by Castro or Soviet leaders, anyway. And in the case of former landlords and bourgeoisie losing what their families had exploited from others: good. I hope it makes them cry. They are an enemy of humanity hoarding wealth, exploiting others, and demanding wars to regain their former possessions. They do not represent the workers ie the people.
Well, let’s take Estonia as an example.
During WW2, the capitalists supported the 1941 Nazi invasion, to the point that many people retreated back with the Nazi armies (source (pp. 78-9)).
After dissolution, the poverty rate skyrocketed from 1% to 38% (source (p. 68)).
You may also want to read this RT article if you’re willing to do so.
Did you read your own source? The first source literally states that Estonian government was forced to hold a manipulated election to elect the communist party that then joined the union. It also contains several example of anti-soviet sentiment from the late 60s all the way to it's publication's date. It's proving my point that the people never wanted to be in the union.
I'm sorry but you need to consider that you simply have been lied to about your own history.
Fairly criticizing the government in the USSR--just like in China, just like in North Korea, and so on--is not illegal.
What these countries do crack down on is when fascists, capitalist opportunists, and foreign intelligence agents work actively to try and destroy, divide, and sabotage them.
The vast majority of people the USSR killed or imprisoned (a number far smaller than what we are told), were actively trying to destroy the USSR, and all the lives of millions of common people who were benefitting from this new system. Why when capitalists kill whoever they see fit, they can call them "traitors", "treasonous", or "terrorists", but when socialists do something far more restrained and humane they are seen as devils?
Well, because, capitalist propaganda has strangled the world discourse, especially the last 30 years. The United States and its allies have spent the last century not only trying to destroy every socialist state but to muddy the waters, lie, and character assassinate its enemies. Everything from gulags, the Holodomor, WW2 war doctrine, the Great Purge, and everything before and after has been radically distorted by capitalist and fascist liars.
I believe you that in your heart you are a socialist. So please listen to me when I say: do not trust the lies about your socialist brothers and sisters that were invented by capitalist and fascist snakes who want to destroy everything you would build.
claiming that USSR or current Russia are your friends seems insane
The USSR is gone. It's not around to be anyone's friend. This means that communists who talk highly of the USSR are analysing the USSR and concluding that it was the greatest experiment in raising living standards in history. (Maybe that's now China, but it's going to be a difficult and possibility incoherent comparison.)
Compare the standard of living before and after the Soviets gained power. Success is the only word for it, even if they're are valid criticisms. (Do not do that silly thing where you compare life for the average person at any time in the Soviet Union with the life of the most decadent and rich person in the US. That's not logical.)
I doubt there are many communists who see Russia as a friend. What you see instead are communists acknowledging that Russia is fighting US imperialism. Considering how much death, tragedy, and destruction the US brings and has brought to the world, any work against the US is a net positive for humanity.
(To preclude misunderstanding, no I am not saying that people dying in the Ukraine war is a good thing. Except die hard Nazis. They can get fucked. It's up to the reader to decide where they think the Nazis are.)
I want to emphasise and follow up something that KiG V2 said:
What these countries do crack down on is when fascists, capitalist opportunists, and foreign intelligence agents work actively to try and destroy, divide, and sabotage them.
Liberals tend to read things like this and say that it is a 'conspiracy'. But think about it like this: if we know one thing for a fact, it is that "capitalist opportunists, and foreign intelligence agents work[ed] actively to … destroy, divide, and sabotage" the USSR until they won. The capitalists won. They got what they wanted. They got what the communists were saying that the reactionaries wanted all along—the end of the USSR.
Now we have 30 years of evidence of how capitalists would run the regions of the USSR differently. If you can compare what life in the USSR looked like before and after the Soviets gained power, you can also compare what life was like before and after the Soviets lost power.
So what happened after the Berlin wall fell? Can you honestly look at the statistics, the records, the economy, the stories, and say that life got better?
If you can, I'd ask you to look again at all segments of society, not just the lucky few in the middle and upper classes. If you think life got worse after the USSR (it did—living standards plummeted), ask: what changed? You, too, will answer that for all it's flaws, the change was from socialism to capitalism and that socialism was by far a superior system for the mass of people.
(PS using 'insane' as a way of criticising something is ableism.)
Yes, we're real communists.
If it were me I would simply not say the government was bad and avoid jail time. This really doesn't seem so hard to me.
If you like your government, you don't want anyone to organize against it. And if many people think like you, a truly democratic government would act according to your desires and jail the agitators.
Or, put otherwise, if you use the democratic mechanisms in place, it's all good. If you protest or demonstrate because you feel you aren't heard by the government, that'll usually have an effect. But if, deep inside, you want to overthrow the government, everyone will hate you and you'll be jailed or worse.
But if, deep inside, you want to overthrow the government, everyone will hate you and you'll be jailed or worse.
Don't you guys also want to overthrow a government?
Or, put otherwise, if you use the democratic mechanisms in place, it's all good. If you protest or demonstrate because you feel you aren't heard by the government, that'll usually have an effect.
Tell that to the people in china.
Don’t you guys also want to overthrow a government?
According to communist theory, our current liberal governments are not democratic, because capital exerts control over them by various means. Thus, overthrowing them is necessary. Of course, if we had a democratic government, we wouldn't wish to overthrow it.
Tell that to the people in china.
If I'm not mistaken, there were extremely small-scale protests about COVID-19 measures and the government immediately listened and removed them.
Chinese people overwhelming support their government.
Source: Harvard (We know how you western chauvinists don't trust anything from a non-euroamerikkkan source)
In contrast to low US political approval ratings, 96% of Chinese are satisfied with the national government (Edelmans 2016). World Values Surveys says that 83% think the country is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups. A Harvard research center study of long-term public opinion survey finds that > 95% of Chinese citizens approved their government. How is this possible in a one-party state? (TED talk by Eric X Li)
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
On what basis do you call me a western chauvinist?
America is in an active state of collapse. My own country England is also slowly declining or has at least lost its relevance. These and other countries like France have done large damage to the world through imperialism. These are all things I acknowledge.
This is the problem I have with Marxists online. You can't actually discuss with someone you don't agree with without putting them into a box and making wild assumptions towards this end.
I would say that it's all well and good for the people to approve of the government but this is meaningless when they lie and cover up information while committing crimes like attempted genocide and forced reeducation of minority groups.
when they lie and cover up information while committing crimes like attempted genocide and forced reeducation of minority groups.
Again, only the anglo countries think this is happening. The rest of the world, namely Muslim countries (especially those who would be receiving refugees were there a genocide) , and the Uyghur people themselves, disagree with you :
"they lie", enough with the orientalism rudyard kipling. Anglos are the most racist people on the planet, and you need to shut your damn mouths before you spout orientalism.
the Uyghur people themselves, disagree with you
You're gonna need some evidence for claims like this. I would have expected better from someone named after Paul Atredies.
orientalism
Since when does calling out genocide have anything to do with orientalism? Like if you just want a successful (given the circumstances) nation under Marxism-Leninism you could just look to Cuba.
Do you have any proof or detail for your claim? Your claim sound like the many disproven slanders against the Communists that is accepted as fact in the school textbooks and "educational" documentaries in Western European diaspora countries. I know that Venezuela under the former Socialist president, Hugo Chavez, tolerate slanders and baseless conspiracy theories against the Socialist government and that "Putin's police guards" allow people to freely sing Ukrainian anthem in Moscow without restrainment. The NATO did stage the 1989 False Flag massacre and write a false narrative that contradicts the original photo evidence by their Western European diaspora journalists (https://web.archive.org/web/19970329011405/http://www.cnd.org:8022/June4th/massacre.html) in China alongside the plothole of why the Chinese citizens somehow did not know about the repression before the 1989 false flag terrorism.
They are just scared idiots who are worried about the future of the world and instead of admitting that their is gray to the world they have taken an easy answer of saying the "other option" (because black and white is all people can think in) was perfect and that they could be 100% happy and never complain about anything ever cause surely communism would be perfect.
They are happy to ignore the rough edges because they aren't actually living it. Not to say it couldn't be a better system but that it would be one that needs work and effort to be best to its citizens.
Both capitalism and communism arrested its citizens for dissenting against the system they were in but this seems fucking ignorant of reality from people who put in half a thought on this at best.
If there is 'gray to the world' does that mean you accept that there must be a positive as well as a negative side to the USSR?
Your final sentence is pure projection.
Yeah this is mischaracterisation. I do not necessarily agree with the Marxists anymore but this doesn't reflect what all Marxists believe at all.