▲ 131 ▼ Libs: "RuSsIa MaN BaD!!" (lemmy.ml) submitted 7 months ago by jankforlife@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 19 points 7 months ago (1 child) Trump has been president since 1846? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (3 children) Russia has been doing imperialism and colonialism since forever. Otherwise there wouldn't be such significant Russian populations that are still monolingually Russian in former Soviet states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 19 points 7 months ago* (1 child) The entire existence of the US is imperialism and colonialism. Until the 1960s the US had a policy of eradicating indigenous languages and cultures. So did Canada and Australia by the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren't surnames in member states derussified? Why weren't placenames derussified? Why didn't Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland? Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) Multiculturalism good except for those orc hordes 🤡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago Nice strawman. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kobuster@feddit.dk -5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) "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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (3 children) Russia has been doing imperialism and colonialism since forever. Otherwise there wouldn't be such significant Russian populations that are still monolingually Russian in former Soviet states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 19 points 7 months ago* (1 child) The entire existence of the US is imperialism and colonialism. Until the 1960s the US had a policy of eradicating indigenous languages and cultures. So did Canada and Australia by the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren't surnames in member states derussified? Why weren't placenames derussified? Why didn't Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland? Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) Multiculturalism good except for those orc hordes 🤡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago Nice strawman. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kobuster@feddit.dk -5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) "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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 19 points 7 months ago* (1 child) The entire existence of the US is imperialism and colonialism. Until the 1960s the US had a policy of eradicating indigenous languages and cultures. So did Canada and Australia by the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren't surnames in member states derussified? Why weren't placenames derussified? Why didn't Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland? Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago Do you think imperialism in Russia stopped with the fall of the Tsar? If the Soviet Union was so anti-imperialist, why weren't surnames in member states derussified? Why weren't placenames derussified? Why didn't Russian settlers move back to the Russian homeland? Same goes for the US and so on. At least reparations/compensation and derussification/deanglicization are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) Multiculturalism good except for those orc hordes 🤡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago Nice strawman. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kobuster@feddit.dk -5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) "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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kobuster@feddit.dk -5 points 7 months ago (2 children) 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! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hell_nah_brother@thelemmy.club 3 points 6 months ago (1 child) You should send the apology form more often. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago That would be a bit too egotistical, haha. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emopunker@feddit.org -7 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) "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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) "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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emopunker@feddit.org -8 points 7 months ago (1 child) No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) 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. Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?" permalink fedilink source parent
