Everyone wants better, my issue is with letting perfect ideals be the enemy of real good.

You’ve been vague and cagey, though. Nobody is saying that you have to support every single action imperfect countries take. How could socialist countries behave differently to the point that you would like them?

So then what materially needs to be different for you to support socialism in real life over opposing it?

Socialist countries do uphold that, though, to the extent physically possible. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union. Are you just opposing revolution, because overthrowing the capitalists, fascists, slavers and tsarists requires infringing on their rights? In that case, certainly you’re upholding the systems that allow them to destroy human dignity each and every day?

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.

As explained earlier, your supposed “anti-imperialist socialists” were upholding Pol Pot in Cambodia against Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR, while the USSR was supporting Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, Algeria, and more. The groups siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split 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.

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.

Communists can have our own spaces, just like y’all can have your own. Communists tend to not be particularly fond of Lemmy.world either.

Lmao

“Russification” was stopped by the soviets, and there was a two-fold effort to promote an internationalist “soviet” identity while preserving national identities. Derussifying surnames was not a priority, but numerous gains were made for cultural preservation.

You’re also confusing culture with imperialism, which is a form of international exploitation on an economic basis typically reinforced by methods like couping, installing compradors, etc.

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.

The USSR was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the Russian Federation inhereted no colonies of the tsarist Russian Empire because of this. There was no “soviet imperialism.”

Nice

Just marry a commie, it’s what I did 🤷

Agreed! I touched on that a bit when comparing the USSR’s GDP to the US Empire’s current GDP below, but comparing to the current economies of Eastern Europe would be even better for proving just how devastating the fall of socialism was, that’s a great point.

GDP in the context of a heavily industrialized socialist economy vs a dying imperialist country where finance is dominant is entirely different. Production continued to meaningfully grow in the USSR, while what we see in the US Empire is a decay in the superprofits stolen from the global south and a hollowed out industrial base, AI bubble, etc, none of which applied to the USSR. Additionally, the economy exploded after the dissolution of the USSR, not before.

The USSR was stable. It was growing slower than before for a number of reasons, but it remains true that it didn’t collapse, it was killed. Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowens is a good essay on some of the factors at play during the dissolution of the USSR. Socialism works.

Economic growth was positive, just slowed. There were numerous reasons for this, from recovery from world war II and the population crisis it caused, to needing to maintain millitary parity with a much wealthier adversary, to economic liberalization, but despite all of this, growth was positive and the systems working. Instead, the soviet union was killed. It didn’t collapse under its own weight and failing systems, but was dismantled on purpose.

The idea that socialist economies were stagnating was used as justification for applying the Washington Consensus and shock therapy, where the west looted the former soviet union for parts and destroyed their economies. Key life metrics plummeted, production crumbled, and took decades to approach their soviet levels.

Awesome, glad to hear it!

Lady Izdihar does this kind of short-form theory! I just posted a video link to her over in c/videos.

I’m asking you what you meant by your statement. This tactic of being extremely cagey after making a vaguely inflammatory statement doesn’t mean you made your comment with no purpose and nothing to say.