What in the everlasting embrace of god. Soviets, who - I’ll admit - simply chose to work people to death painted as the good guys? The same soviets that starved, beaten and let people freeze to death? The same that put people in cattle wagons and rode them out to syberia in nothing more than clothes they had on their backs?
The USSR was perhaps the single most progressive movement in the entire 20th century. It was not free from flaw, of course not, but in total it was a massive leap forward for the Working Class not only within the Soviet Union, but its very existence forced western countries to adopt expanded social safety nets (along with the efforts of leftist organizers within these countries).
From a brutal, impoverished backwater country barely industrialized, to beating the United States into space, in 50 years. Mid 30s life expectancies due to constant starvation, homelessness, and outright murder from the Tsarist Regime, doubled to the 70s very quickly. Literacy rates from the 20s and 30s to 99.9%, more than Western Nations. All of this in a single generation.
Wealth disparity shrank, while productivity growth was one of the highest in the 20th century:
Supported liberation movements in Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, Korea, China, Palestine, and more. Ensured free, and high quality healthcare and education for all. Lower retirement ages than the US, 55 for women and 60 for men. Legalized, free abortion. Full employment, and no recessions outside of World War 2. Defeated the Nazis with 80% of the combat in the entire European theater. Supported armistice treaties that the US continuously denied.
The bad guys won the Cold War, and they did so by forcing the USSR to spend a huge amount of their resources on keeping up millitarily, as the United States had much more resources and could deal with it that way.
I’d have to challenge that “the bad guys won the Cold War” rhetoric. If the USSR was as successful as your argument claims, why did so many Soviet republics seek independence?
Moreover, it directly compares, say, the Soviet treatment of Estonia with the fascist slaver regime over Cuba that the Soviets helped overthrow, or the Israeli treatment of Palestinians via genocide. It equates what can’t be equated. Further, that means that the US Confederacy should have been allowed to leave purely on the basis of wanting to. It’s not a real point, it’s cheap.
If you keep going with Blackshirts and Reds, it gets to the events surrounding its dissolution, such as the botched coup attempt, liberalization in order to try to make up for spending so many resources on the Cold War, and more, though not a full picture. If you genuinely want to know more after you finish Blackshirts, I recommend Parenti’s 1986 lecture, which is even more entertaining because Parenti is a fantastic and passionate speaker. I’d throw on Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? as an additional articls, around 30 minutes to read, going over the merits of the Soviet Economy and why it was dissolved.
All of that is well and good, but not enough to say that the Soviets were the good side. It’s also necessary to truly look at how disgustingly evil the United States is, and for that I recommend the podcast Blowback. If you listen to Blowback, there will be nothing but hatred and disgust of the highest order for the United States, from lying about WMDs to thoroughly destroy Iraq, to dropping more bombs on Korea than in the entire Pacific Front of World War 2, to countless war crimes intentionally done to make populations suffer and no longer support their governments just to make it stop.
Okay, so I’ve got a couple of issues with your response. First of all, the referendum only polled 9 out of the 15 republics. The other six boycotted it since they were already pushing for independence. Moreover, within months, nearly every republic declared full independence. If they truly didn’t want to secede from the USSR, would they have declared independence?
Secondly, I don’t think nostalgia is a good gauge of what people want. Individuals have a tendency to romanticize the past especially during hard times. For example, many citizens of African countries revel in reminiscing about the colonial era due to economic hardships faced today. Is that what they truly want? Probably not. It is usually due to poor knowledge of colonial history that they have these sentiments.
Furthermore, I’m well aware that the US is a despicable country, and my increasing knowledge about its history only fuels my hatred of it, but you’re bordering on whataboutism if the standard for the most progressive movement of the 20th century is being “not as bad as the US” which is a pretty low bar.
Edit: You can’t compare the confederacy - a slave-owning rebellion fighting to preserve human bondage to the soviet republics - nations seeking independence from an authoritarian superstate. If you really want to compare the USSR with the US civil war, it would be better to compare it to the 13 colonies fighting for independence from the British crown.
Besides, you still didn’t address the core argument: If Soviet rule was truly beneficial, why did so many nations (at least 5) risk war and economic collapse to escape it?
The small few that were boycotting it each deserve more investigation than a single Lemmy comment thread. The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements. It isn’t sufficient to say that they boycotted it, therefore the USSR was evil, it’s more accurate to say that it needs investigation. I can’t do the intricacies of their nationalist movements any justice in a Lemmy thread other than telling you that they exist.
Secondly, yes, they did vote to leave months later. The mess with the botched coup, the existence of a weird new political position that stood against the Soviet balance of power in a way that messed up the economy (long story as well), and privatization had already been at play and came to a head months later. The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
As for Soviet Nostalgia, that’s just the term. Look at the polling data, the questions specifically ask about economic situations or if it was bad that the Soviet Union fell. These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states. After the fall, an estimated 7 million people died due to the collapse of social safety nets and the destruction of the economy. Capitalism was and is disastrous for these nations, whose metrics are only just now approaching their Soviet Levels, such as life expectancy, while metrics like wealth disparity and poverty are massive.
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
As for US bad, I’ll ask you to name a more influential country than the US or the USSR during the 20th century. In terms of sheer impact, the USSR was by far the most progressive. The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded. It isn’t just a “low bar,” the United States is perhaps the single most evil country to ever exist outside of Nazi Germany, and the Soviets opposed both.
The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements.
So now Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Moldovans, and Armenians suddenly became fascists? Idk, i feel this is a very dishonest take, but who knows what justification you have for this stance.
The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
And yet Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved to swiftly reform or completely dismantle the system. Couldn’t it be that they thought the system to be outdated? You do realize that the main reason many grew tired of the Soviet way of doing things was because of Deng Xiaoping’s capitalist reforms putting pressure on the USSR to dissolve right?
These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states.
So why haven’t they tried to reinstate the USSR?
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
I’m well into the second chapter
The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded
This still has whataboutist undertones. The USSR also crushed uprisings (Hungary, Prague Spring), supported brutal regimes (Afghanistan, East Germany), and committed mass killings (Holodomor and the Great Purge).
This entire comment is you speaking quite confidently about situations you evidently do not know about. My advice is to not speak on subjects you only think you know about regarding US geopolitical enemies.
Again, I cannot give an accurate assessment of each of their nationalist movements in a Lemmy comment chain. I could point you to the heroization of Nazi collaborater Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, as an example, but that itself requires investigation. It isn’t a dishonest stance, rather, I am telling you to do genuine research into these.
As for the Soviet Economy, I have already linked sources on why growth slowed towards the end and that it wasn’t outdated. There were contributing factors like planning by hand rather than computerization, and focusing much of the GDP on millitarization, but ultimately the economy was stronger and grew faster than the current Capitalist system. Further, Deng didn’t add “Capitalist reforms,” he pivoted to a Socialist Market Economy. That in and of itself is a huge topic.
The Russians haven’t re-instated Socialism because they are in a Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Socialism needs to be achieved via Revolution, and that has a lot of requirements, especially considering current NATO encirclement is a constant threat where even if a Revolution occured, the same thing that happened in 1917 would happen, mass invasion by Capitalist countries to stop Socialism in its tracks (14 countries invaded Russia in 1917). Technically Belarus has a Socialist Market Economy still, and is generally doing much better than its neighboring countries that went full on into Capitalism.
As for Blackshirts, the next 3 chapters are perhaps the most important for this conversation. It goes over “left-anticommunism” in the west, the benefits and drawbacks of the Soviet System, and what led to its collapse (in Parenti’s eyes). Honestly, if I were you I’d stop talking to people about the Soviets until you have finished the book, and taken the time to digest it, but if you have specific questions I can help.
The last chapters go over the devastation Capitalism brought to the USSR, which is also topical for this convo.
Back to “uprisings.” Again, this is why you really shouldn’t use topics you aren’t aware of as points in your argument. In Hungary and Prague, both “uprisings” were US-Backed, involved mass lynchings of Soviet officials before the Soviets sent in the millitary, and were led by genuine fascists. In Hungary, for example, they even let out hundreds of Nazis from prison to assist with the slaughter of Soviets, and the Peasantry helped the Millitary put it down. As for the “mass killings,” it isn’t accurate to call a famine a “mass killing” rather than a huge tragedy, and further the Purges were in the vast majority of cases simply expelling from the Party, actual punishment was usually imprisonment. Execution was relatively rare in comparison.
If you genuinely do not know enough about an event, please, just don’t speak on it.
Okay, i won’t speak on things i don’t know too well, i will however call out the blatant lies in your comment.
Deng didn’t add “Capitalist reforms,” he pivoted to a Socialist Market Economy
This is a lie! Deng explicitly introduced market reforms, privatization, and allowed foreign investment. If it wasn’t capitalism, why does China today have billionaires, stock markets, and private enterprise?
Execution was relatively rare in comparison.
Another lie! The Stalinist purges killed millions. Denying this is blatant historical revisionism. Vasily Blokhin the chief executioner of the NKVD and one of the most prolific executioners in world history has more than 7,000 executions to his name. Are you denying this clear evidence? Also, don’t get me started on the massive number of graves that were discovered
The USSR’s republics didn’t just debate independence, they actually left. If it was just “internal politics,” why did every non-Russian republic take the first opportunity to break away?
The Texas/California comparison is a weak false equivalence. The USSR suppressed nationalist movements (read on the Hungarian Revolution), while the U.S. allows open political discourse.
It’s the only equivalency there can be between the two countries; unlike the Soviet Union, the United States was not formed by colonial absorbtion of neighboring nations. The closest thing there is, is the Mexican land grab in the 19th century and Europe has a long history of nationalist movements being suppressed, so the Soviet Union is not unique in that regard.
And, just like the USSR, the US has a track record of not allowing political discourse that threatens its hegemony; the Black Panthers, Pinochet, and Cuba are probably the most glaring examples.
You’re deflecting. If the USSR was truly a voluntary workers’ paradise, why did nearly all of its republics leave at the first opportunity? You’re avoiding that question by pointing to U.S. wrongdoing, but the reality is that Soviet republics didn’t just ‘entertain’ secession like Texas, they actively fought for it and succeeded.
Comparing minor secessionist sentiments in Texas to the complete collapse of a superstate is absurd.
And you’re refusing to accept that political and cultural divisions are a natural part of any state’s existence; it has little to do with it being capitalist nor communist and those divisions will be based on the country’s disposition. Ie workers rights for a worker’s country like the USSR and oligarchical primacy for a country controlled by wealth like the US.
I bring up American successionist movements because they’ve been a thing for the United States just as much as the they were for the Soviet Union; my point could have probably been better made by the American civil war.
Secessionist sentiments in the united states were not nearly as big a thing as they were for soviet republics who faced economic and civic turmoil for decades.
A better comparison would be if after the US civil war, America fell apart entirely. That’s the only reasonable comparison i can accept.
What in the everlasting embrace of god. Soviets, who - I’ll admit - simply chose to work people to death painted as the good guys? The same soviets that starved, beaten and let people freeze to death? The same that put people in cattle wagons and rode them out to syberia in nothing more than clothes they had on their backs?
The USSR was perhaps the single most progressive movement in the entire 20th century. It was not free from flaw, of course not, but in total it was a massive leap forward for the Working Class not only within the Soviet Union, but its very existence forced western countries to adopt expanded social safety nets (along with the efforts of leftist organizers within these countries).
From a brutal, impoverished backwater country barely industrialized, to beating the United States into space, in 50 years. Mid 30s life expectancies due to constant starvation, homelessness, and outright murder from the Tsarist Regime, doubled to the 70s very quickly. Literacy rates from the 20s and 30s to 99.9%, more than Western Nations. All of this in a single generation.
Wealth disparity shrank, while productivity growth was one of the highest in the 20th century:
Supported liberation movements in Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, Korea, China, Palestine, and more. Ensured free, and high quality healthcare and education for all. Lower retirement ages than the US, 55 for women and 60 for men. Legalized, free abortion. Full employment, and no recessions outside of World War 2. Defeated the Nazis with 80% of the combat in the entire European theater. Supported armistice treaties that the US continuously denied.
The bad guys won the Cold War, and they did so by forcing the USSR to spend a huge amount of their resources on keeping up millitarily, as the United States had much more resources and could deal with it that way.
I’d have to challenge that “the bad guys won the Cold War” rhetoric. If the USSR was as successful as your argument claims, why did so many Soviet republics seek independence?
The answer is that most didn’t seek independence originally. The referendum on the preservation of the USSR, shortly before its dissolution, wanted it to persist. in looking at Soviet Nostalgia, most say they were better off under Socialism than Capitalism and say the dissolution was a bad thing.
Moreover, it directly compares, say, the Soviet treatment of Estonia with the fascist slaver regime over Cuba that the Soviets helped overthrow, or the Israeli treatment of Palestinians via genocide. It equates what can’t be equated. Further, that means that the US Confederacy should have been allowed to leave purely on the basis of wanting to. It’s not a real point, it’s cheap.
If you keep going with Blackshirts and Reds, it gets to the events surrounding its dissolution, such as the botched coup attempt, liberalization in order to try to make up for spending so many resources on the Cold War, and more, though not a full picture. If you genuinely want to know more after you finish Blackshirts, I recommend Parenti’s 1986 lecture, which is even more entertaining because Parenti is a fantastic and passionate speaker. I’d throw on Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? as an additional articls, around 30 minutes to read, going over the merits of the Soviet Economy and why it was dissolved.
All of that is well and good, but not enough to say that the Soviets were the good side. It’s also necessary to truly look at how disgustingly evil the United States is, and for that I recommend the podcast Blowback. If you listen to Blowback, there will be nothing but hatred and disgust of the highest order for the United States, from lying about WMDs to thoroughly destroy Iraq, to dropping more bombs on Korea than in the entire Pacific Front of World War 2, to countless war crimes intentionally done to make populations suffer and no longer support their governments just to make it stop.
Okay, so I’ve got a couple of issues with your response. First of all, the referendum only polled 9 out of the 15 republics. The other six boycotted it since they were already pushing for independence. Moreover, within months, nearly every republic declared full independence. If they truly didn’t want to secede from the USSR, would they have declared independence?
Secondly, I don’t think nostalgia is a good gauge of what people want. Individuals have a tendency to romanticize the past especially during hard times. For example, many citizens of African countries revel in reminiscing about the colonial era due to economic hardships faced today. Is that what they truly want? Probably not. It is usually due to poor knowledge of colonial history that they have these sentiments.
Furthermore, I’m well aware that the US is a despicable country, and my increasing knowledge about its history only fuels my hatred of it, but you’re bordering on whataboutism if the standard for the most progressive movement of the 20th century is being “not as bad as the US” which is a pretty low bar.
Edit: You can’t compare the confederacy - a slave-owning rebellion fighting to preserve human bondage to the soviet republics - nations seeking independence from an authoritarian superstate. If you really want to compare the USSR with the US civil war, it would be better to compare it to the 13 colonies fighting for independence from the British crown.
Besides, you still didn’t address the core argument: If Soviet rule was truly beneficial, why did so many nations (at least 5) risk war and economic collapse to escape it?
The small few that were boycotting it each deserve more investigation than a single Lemmy comment thread. The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements. It isn’t sufficient to say that they boycotted it, therefore the USSR was evil, it’s more accurate to say that it needs investigation. I can’t do the intricacies of their nationalist movements any justice in a Lemmy thread other than telling you that they exist.
Secondly, yes, they did vote to leave months later. The mess with the botched coup, the existence of a weird new political position that stood against the Soviet balance of power in a way that messed up the economy (long story as well), and privatization had already been at play and came to a head months later. The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
As for Soviet Nostalgia, that’s just the term. Look at the polling data, the questions specifically ask about economic situations or if it was bad that the Soviet Union fell. These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states. After the fall, an estimated 7 million people died due to the collapse of social safety nets and the destruction of the economy. Capitalism was and is disastrous for these nations, whose metrics are only just now approaching their Soviet Levels, such as life expectancy, while metrics like wealth disparity and poverty are massive.
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
As for US bad, I’ll ask you to name a more influential country than the US or the USSR during the 20th century. In terms of sheer impact, the USSR was by far the most progressive. The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded. It isn’t just a “low bar,” the United States is perhaps the single most evil country to ever exist outside of Nazi Germany, and the Soviets opposed both.
So now Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Moldovans, and Armenians suddenly became fascists? Idk, i feel this is a very dishonest take, but who knows what justification you have for this stance.
And yet Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved to swiftly reform or completely dismantle the system. Couldn’t it be that they thought the system to be outdated? You do realize that the main reason many grew tired of the Soviet way of doing things was because of Deng Xiaoping’s capitalist reforms putting pressure on the USSR to dissolve right?
So why haven’t they tried to reinstate the USSR?
I’m well into the second chapter
This still has whataboutist undertones. The USSR also crushed uprisings (Hungary, Prague Spring), supported brutal regimes (Afghanistan, East Germany), and committed mass killings (Holodomor and the Great Purge).
This entire comment is you speaking quite confidently about situations you evidently do not know about. My advice is to not speak on subjects you only think you know about regarding US geopolitical enemies.
Again, I cannot give an accurate assessment of each of their nationalist movements in a Lemmy comment chain. I could point you to the heroization of Nazi collaborater Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, as an example, but that itself requires investigation. It isn’t a dishonest stance, rather, I am telling you to do genuine research into these.
As for the Soviet Economy, I have already linked sources on why growth slowed towards the end and that it wasn’t outdated. There were contributing factors like planning by hand rather than computerization, and focusing much of the GDP on millitarization, but ultimately the economy was stronger and grew faster than the current Capitalist system. Further, Deng didn’t add “Capitalist reforms,” he pivoted to a Socialist Market Economy. That in and of itself is a huge topic.
The Russians haven’t re-instated Socialism because they are in a Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Socialism needs to be achieved via Revolution, and that has a lot of requirements, especially considering current NATO encirclement is a constant threat where even if a Revolution occured, the same thing that happened in 1917 would happen, mass invasion by Capitalist countries to stop Socialism in its tracks (14 countries invaded Russia in 1917). Technically Belarus has a Socialist Market Economy still, and is generally doing much better than its neighboring countries that went full on into Capitalism.
As for Blackshirts, the next 3 chapters are perhaps the most important for this conversation. It goes over “left-anticommunism” in the west, the benefits and drawbacks of the Soviet System, and what led to its collapse (in Parenti’s eyes). Honestly, if I were you I’d stop talking to people about the Soviets until you have finished the book, and taken the time to digest it, but if you have specific questions I can help.
The last chapters go over the devastation Capitalism brought to the USSR, which is also topical for this convo.
Back to “uprisings.” Again, this is why you really shouldn’t use topics you aren’t aware of as points in your argument. In Hungary and Prague, both “uprisings” were US-Backed, involved mass lynchings of Soviet officials before the Soviets sent in the millitary, and were led by genuine fascists. In Hungary, for example, they even let out hundreds of Nazis from prison to assist with the slaughter of Soviets, and the Peasantry helped the Millitary put it down. As for the “mass killings,” it isn’t accurate to call a famine a “mass killing” rather than a huge tragedy, and further the Purges were in the vast majority of cases simply expelling from the Party, actual punishment was usually imprisonment. Execution was relatively rare in comparison.
If you genuinely do not know enough about an event, please, just don’t speak on it.
Okay, i won’t speak on things i don’t know too well, i will however call out the blatant lies in your comment.
This is a lie! Deng explicitly introduced market reforms, privatization, and allowed foreign investment. If it wasn’t capitalism, why does China today have billionaires, stock markets, and private enterprise?
Another lie! The Stalinist purges killed millions. Denying this is blatant historical revisionism. Vasily Blokhin the chief executioner of the NKVD and one of the most prolific executioners in world history has more than 7,000 executions to his name. Are you denying this clear evidence? Also, don’t get me started on the massive number of graves that were discovered
For the same reasons California or Texas keep entertaining independence ballot initiatives every 4 years; internal politics.
The USSR’s republics didn’t just debate independence, they actually left. If it was just “internal politics,” why did every non-Russian republic take the first opportunity to break away?
The Texas/California comparison is a weak false equivalence. The USSR suppressed nationalist movements (read on the Hungarian Revolution), while the U.S. allows open political discourse.
It’s the only equivalency there can be between the two countries; unlike the Soviet Union, the United States was not formed by colonial absorbtion of neighboring nations. The closest thing there is, is the Mexican land grab in the 19th century and Europe has a long history of nationalist movements being suppressed, so the Soviet Union is not unique in that regard.
And, just like the USSR, the US has a track record of not allowing political discourse that threatens its hegemony; the Black Panthers, Pinochet, and Cuba are probably the most glaring examples.
You’re deflecting. If the USSR was truly a voluntary workers’ paradise, why did nearly all of its republics leave at the first opportunity? You’re avoiding that question by pointing to U.S. wrongdoing, but the reality is that Soviet republics didn’t just ‘entertain’ secession like Texas, they actively fought for it and succeeded.
Comparing minor secessionist sentiments in Texas to the complete collapse of a superstate is absurd.
And you’re refusing to accept that political and cultural divisions are a natural part of any state’s existence; it has little to do with it being capitalist nor communist and those divisions will be based on the country’s disposition. Ie workers rights for a worker’s country like the USSR and oligarchical primacy for a country controlled by wealth like the US.
I bring up American successionist movements because they’ve been a thing for the United States just as much as the they were for the Soviet Union; my point could have probably been better made by the American civil war.
Secessionist sentiments in the united states were not nearly as big a thing as they were for soviet republics who faced economic and civic turmoil for decades.
A better comparison would be if after the US civil war, America fell apart entirely. That’s the only reasonable comparison i can accept.