I just realised I was talking to two people and edited my comment.
My other points still stand. Youāve proved my point: there isnāt a ārightā answer, thereās only, like always, a class-based answer. If you believe the ruling class you reach one conclusion. If not, you reach a different conclusion.
Itās up to you which side you find more authoritative. For me, Iām 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 Iāve 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. Iāve had discussions about the union with people who actually lived in the union. My opinion isnāt some āchoose which class answer you likeā, itās based on what people actually went through during that period. If you want to believe whatever youāve read on the internet go ahead, but the truth from the actual proletariats (because none of them were capitalists, otherwise Iād 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 everyoneās arguments against you to, āyou just read what you did on the internet, I talked to real people therefore my argument is more validā, the stance that youāre 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.
They are also pretty clearly in the camp of bootlicking US imperialism including participating in their wars, supporting neonazism and celebrating original nazism.
You could always ask the people who lived there during that era, which is what Iāve done.
All nearly 1.6 million of them? Never mind that hundreds of thousands of people left after the USSRās dissolutionā¦
Your family in particular might not be particularly representative, or there might be other context weāre missing, such as why they wouldnāt want the USSR when it was increasing its peopleās standard of living.
If you talk to certain people in my country, theyāll tell that neoliberalism has been a success because it lifted their standard of living. It doesnāt 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 didnāt 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 itās been like in the slow, violent aftermath of letting the capitalists back in.
because none of them were capitalists, otherwise Iād 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 ācapitalistsā through that time, that ācapitalistsā might not have probably died in Siberia.
Look, Iām not saying the USSR was perfect. Iām not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. Iām saying you need to understand that whether itās 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. Itās the same for the people youāre going to talk to. You canāt 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 doesnāt 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 didnāt 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 itās 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 ācapitalistsā through that time, that ācapitalistsā might not have probably died in Siberia.
So we can say the USSR failed to create socialism? Because after half a century of the ādictatorship of the proletariatā the bourgeoisie still existed in those countries as none of them stayed socialist after the collapse.
Look, Iām not saying the USSR was perfect. Iām not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. Iām saying you need to understand that whether itās 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. Itās the same for the people youāre going to talk to. You canāt 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 doesnāt change anything.
The people I talked to, their ruling class for the majority of their life was the āproletariatā class. Their point of view of the world didnāt magically change after the union collapsed and capitalism was introduced. If they canāt be trusted to give accurate insight into how the world was back then then who can you trust?
Well clearly also lucky for me to not have my ancestors be deported to Siberia.
Or your ancestors were just among the vast majority of peopleāwho were not deported to Siberia. Perhaps they were even supportive enough of the Soviet project that they were happy to live in it without rebelling so much that they would be punished.
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.
Yes. This is not controversial. The question is, why? (The answer is because capitalists will never willingly let socialists take power and will do everything possible to stop socialists from succeeding.)
So we can say the USSR failed to create socialism?
Considering the USSR doesnāt exist and the world is not socialist, I donāt think itās controversial to say the USSR failed to create socialism. They succeeded in implementing a socialist experiment and brought underdeveloped and war torn parts of Europe to a position there they could compete on an equal footing with the most advanced capitalist countries.
They also helped bring about an end to colonialism and weāre so successful the advanced capitalist states had to implement a welfare state to prevent revolutions in the imperial core.
If they canāt be trusted to give accurate insight into how the world was back then then who can you trust?
They can be trusted to give an account based on a memory of things that happened over 30 years ago, based on their own experience, their class position during and after the USSR, all influenced by folk knowledge and propaganda by Soviets and capitalists. Their view is valid data. But it is not universal data. There is no such thing.
There are few sources that I would ātrustā on their face. Oral history, ethnography, and auto-ethnography have their uses, but they have limitations. Such accounts must be understood in their political economic context.
Alright, what would be thing that would change your mind? Iām just going to focus it down to Estonia so it there would be less vagueness over the baltics (because they are still 3 different countries with different historical backgrounds). What would it take for you to believe that Estonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willingly leave the union?
Clearly itās not the fact that on the precipice of WW2 Estonia wanted to be neutral, which also means not wanting to be in the soviet union.
Itās also clearly not the fact that post-collapse Estonia designated that period as a period of foreign occupation
Itās obviously also not the fact that Estonia was forcibly manipulated to join the Union in the first place.
Nor the fact that someone living in that country is telling you that the people living here didnāt want to live in the union.
How about the secret protocol of MRP where the Soviet Union clearly states Estonia will be in their sphere of influence. And thatās regardless of what Estonia thinks on the matter.
So really, what is the missing part of proof that would change your mind? Why do you believe the opposite in the first place?
Alright, what would be thing that would change your mind?
Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.
Why do you believe the opposite in the first place?
It depends what you mean by āthe oppositeā. I think you have misunderstood what Iām saying. Iām not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So āthe oppositeā is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didnāt and Iām not denying it. Iām saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.
I know that many people did not like the USSR. I know that the proportion of people who did not like the USSR was different in different SSRs. I know that many people suffered in the USSR, some for good reasons and some who didnāt deserve it. I know that the USSR made mistakes and that different SSRs made different mistakes. I know that the sum of errors made by the USSR led to itās dissolution.
More stories that people didnāt like the USSR is not a new argument, itās more evidence for an existing, common argument, which I have heard many times and dismissed. Youāre making it sound like you think Iāve never read that anti-Soviet narrative. But every single part of my education was anti-communist.
I started with the anti-communist history, documentaries, survey data, movies, novels, etc, and I found it all lacking in basic requirements of logic and rigour. The anti-communist narrative does not hold up to any of the standards applied to any other idea or subject. This fact should raise alarm bells for anyone who claims to think critically.
More stories about people surviving and living normal lives in the USSR, even if they disliked the USSR, suggests the opposite of what you think it does. It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly. More stories about this or that SSR that wanted to leave but ācouldnātā, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If itās proof of anything, given that we know that the USSR ended and that e.g. the Baltics are no longer in the USSR, it proves that SSRs could leave.
I hold that the USSR was still a success because itās achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the worldās second most powerful superpower in one generation, all without colonialism. Then they liberated the rest of Europe and Asia (supporting China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam) from brutal Nazis, fascists, and colonialists. Then they helped liberate much of Africa and parts of Latin America from the same brutal, murderous, terror regimes of western imperialists. There is nothing you could ever say to me that will make me think these were bad things. And I have only scratched the surface of foreign policy.
Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the āadvanced civilisationsā were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didnāt have anything close to universal education, housing, employment, healthcare, suffrage, etc. And did everything that people criticise the USSR for but on a much greater and more violent scale.
So the question is not what would change my mind, because I already have a nuanced and balanced view. The question is what would change your mind?
What would make you realise that implying that a Union of hundreds of million people, that defeated the Nazis, supported anti-colonial movements, and spanning 70 years, didnāt do a single thing right? Because to me, insisting that 6 people and a survey taken at one particular time in one particular place as representative of the facts and experience of all those millions, across a wide geography and several decades isā¦ itās not rigorous or logical, Iāll say that much.
Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.
So thatās a roundabout way of saying āno, nothing will change my mindā. Good to know and this will be the last time I will respond to you, so I will point out the stupidity of some of your statements.
It depends what you mean by āthe oppositeā. I think you have misunderstood what Iām saying. Iām not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So āthe oppositeā is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didnāt and Iām not denying it. Iām saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.
Here youāre twisting what I said to say nothing. The opposite of āEstonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willing leave itā is that āEstonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave itā. Youāre just going off on a tangent to not address the point.
More stories about people surviving and living normal lives in the USSR, even if they disliked the USSR, suggests the opposite of what you think it does.
Some people can also live a normal life under imperialistic sphere of the US, even if they dislike US. Does that mean it suggests the opposite of your understanding of the US, and by extension capitalism? That capitalism isnāt bad?
It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly.
I know, some were shot on sight, others weāre sent to jail to rot. The ones who lived had to keep their nose down to survive.
More stories about this or that SSR that wanted to leave but ācouldnātā, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If itās proof of anything, given that we know that the USSR ended and that e.g. the Baltics are no longer in the USSR, it proves that SSRs could leave.
So you believe the SSRs could leave the union because the union stopped existing? By the time those countries could actually vote themselves out of the union the collapse was already inevitable. You acknowledge there was dissent and desire to leave and thatās where my question was, why couldnāt they leave before. But youāre not interested in answering that because that doesnāt suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.
I hold that the USSR was still a success because itās achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the worldās second most powerful superpower in one generation, all without colonialism.
Guess Nazi Germany was also a success in your book. They turned a crumbling nation into something that was an existential threat even to the USSR, all in one generation, no colonialism and only at fraction of the size of the union.
Then they liberated the rest of Europe and Asia (supporting China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam) from brutal Nazis, fascists, and colonialists.
With the significant help of the good old capitalist America. USSR probably wouldnāt have survived the Nazi invasion if not for lend-lease program from America. In Khrushchev memoirs he mentions that Stalin himself said that USSR wouldnāt have won without the help from America. The USSR didnāt do this liberation on their own and they couldnāt have done it without America.
Then they helped liberate much of Africa and parts of Latin America from the same brutal, murderous, terror regimes of western imperialists. There is nothing you could ever say to me that will make me think these were bad things. And I have only scratched the surface of foreign policy.
I never said they were bad things. But Mr ānuanced and balanced viewā here should be able to see how not everything the union did was good just as everything the US does is bad, as I just pointed out US is the reason the USSR didnāt lose to Nazi Germany. As is stands their actions in other parts of the world donāt invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.
Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the āadvanced civilisationsā were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didnāt have anything close to universal education, housing, employment, healthcare, suffrage, etc. And did everything that people criticise the USSR for but on a much greater and more violent scale.
Whataboutism.
What would make you realise that implying that a Union of hundreds of million people, that defeated the Nazis, supported anti-colonial movements, and spanning 70 years, didnāt do a single thing right?
Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didnāt do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they werenāt.
But itās not like youāre going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that youāre going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.
So thatās a roundabout way of saying āno, nothing will change my mindā.
No, itās a direct way of saying that you wonāt change my mind. I didnāt wake up a Marxist one day after hitting my head or eating something spicy.
The opposite of āEstonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willing leave itā is that āEstonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave itā.
I donāt recall saying that āEstoniaā wanted to be in or out the Union. From the beginning, Iāve been saying that some people wanted in and some people wanted out. And Iāve been saying that their position is determined by their class position.
Thereās no going off on a tangent. Putting things into their political economic context is a basic element of Marxist analysis.
Some people can also live a normal life under imperialistic sphere of the US, even if they dislike US. Does that mean it suggests the opposite of your understanding of the US, and by extension capitalism? That capitalism isnāt bad?
You have severely misunderstood my argument. Thereās too much to unpack here for me to untangle.
doesnāt suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.
Iām a Marxist, i.e. a scientific socialist, who rejects idealism. It is worse than useless for people who want socialism/communism to misdiagnose the problems of the USSR. I have zero interest in an idyllic fairy tale. Which is why I insist on logical and methodological rigour when forming my views about the USSR.
Have you even been reading what I wrote? Or are you just picking all the bits that you donāt like to make yourself angry?
Guess Nazi Germany was also a success in your book. They turned a crumbling nation into something that was an existential threat even to the USSR, all in one generation, no colonialism and only at fraction of the size of the union.
Are you for real? Is this really how you understand Nazi Germany? After what you said above, Iām not so sure that you are a Nazi sympathiser. Now I think you just donāt know what youāre talking about. Then again, Nazi sympathisers do like their horseshoe theories to whitewash and minimise the horrors of capitalism.
I never said they were bad things.
I didnāt say that you said these were bad things. I donāt recall you saying anything about these things at all and I canāt be bothered to scroll back up. I mentioned these things because you asked what would change my mind. And Iām telling you that with these positives on the record, nobody will ever convince me that the USSR was not a net benefit to humanity.
to see how not everything the union did was good
Please re-read what I said.
As is stands their actions in other parts of the world donāt invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.
This is entirely beside the point. Itās you who keeps insisting on the issue. Did you forget that this all started with someone asking why communists are positive about the USSR?
Whataboutism.
If you ask someone a question about why they think X, you canāt cry āwhataboutismā when they list the reasons for thinking X.
Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didnāt do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they werenāt.
I know you didnāt say this explicitly. But you did imply it. You came running in to a discussion about why people are positive about the USSR to say that weāre all wrong because we havenāt considered your tiny bit of evidence that some people didnāt like the Union (which we have seen and considered before, albeit in a different format). Your framing implies that our reasons are insignificant in the face of six people and a survey that disagrees.
Further, you canāt cry ātwisting my wordsā in the same breath as claiming that I said āthe other SSRs were free and democraticā when I didnāt say it. It comes off as a bitā¦ disingenuous.
But itās not like youāre going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that youāre going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.
Well, I did tell you not to come back at me with anti-communism because you wonāt change my mind. Iām not trying to hide that. The real mystery is what made you think you could come into an explicitly communist space and turn people into liberals with an anecdote.
I just realised I was talking to two people and edited my comment.
My other points still stand. Youāve proved my point: there isnāt a ārightā answer, thereās only, like always, a class-based answer. If you believe the ruling class you reach one conclusion. If not, you reach a different conclusion.
Itās up to you which side you find more authoritative. For me, Iām 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 Iāve 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. Iāve had discussions about the union with people who actually lived in the union. My opinion isnāt some āchoose which class answer you likeā, itās based on what people actually went through during that period. If you want to believe whatever youāve read on the internet go ahead, but the truth from the actual proletariats (because none of them were capitalists, otherwise Iād 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 everyoneās arguments against you to, āyou just read what you did on the internet, I talked to real people therefore my argument is more validā, the stance that youāre 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.
This good enough for you?
The Baltic states are pretty clearly in the camp of the collapse not being a bad thing.
They are also pretty clearly in the camp of bootlicking US imperialism including participating in their wars, supporting neonazism and celebrating original nazism.
Thatās how I know I made a good point, when the only thing you reply with is āBut theyāre nazisā.
So youāre a Nazi sympathiser, too?
Ah you seemed such a normal guy in the other chain, sucks that youāre such an asshole here.
Iāll take that as a yes.
Which baltic state are you from may I ask?
So I can link the relevant article about the growth of nazi collaborator monuments from forward.
Yes, nazis, people famously known for their lack of bias against communism, which is completely based on rational thought /s
Shitting your own pants and admitting you stan for nazis is not a āgood pointā, itās terrible one.
Your lack of reading comprehension does not make me a āstan for nazisā.
Yawn. Follow your leader.
All nearly 1.6 million of them? Never mind that hundreds of thousands of people left after the USSRās dissolutionā¦
Your family in particular might not be particularly representative, or there might be other context weāre missing, such as why they wouldnāt want the USSR when it was increasing its peopleās standard of living.
If you talk to certain people in my country, theyāll tell that neoliberalism has been a success because it lifted their standard of living. It doesnāt 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 didnāt 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 itās been like in the slow, violent aftermath of letting the capitalists 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 ācapitalistsā through that time, that ācapitalistsā might not have probably died in Siberia.
Look, Iām not saying the USSR was perfect. Iām not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. Iām saying you need to understand that whether itās 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. Itās the same for the people youāre going to talk to. You canāt 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 doesnāt change anything.
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.
So we can say the USSR failed to create socialism? Because after half a century of the ādictatorship of the proletariatā the bourgeoisie still existed in those countries as none of them stayed socialist after the collapse.
The people I talked to, their ruling class for the majority of their life was the āproletariatā class. Their point of view of the world didnāt magically change after the union collapsed and capitalism was introduced. If they canāt be trusted to give accurate insight into how the world was back then then who can you trust?
Or your ancestors were just among the vast majority of peopleāwho were not deported to Siberia. Perhaps they were even supportive enough of the Soviet project that they were happy to live in it without rebelling so much that they would be punished.
Yes. This is not controversial. The question is, why? (The answer is because capitalists will never willingly let socialists take power and will do everything possible to stop socialists from succeeding.)
Considering the USSR doesnāt exist and the world is not socialist, I donāt think itās controversial to say the USSR failed to create socialism. They succeeded in implementing a socialist experiment and brought underdeveloped and war torn parts of Europe to a position there they could compete on an equal footing with the most advanced capitalist countries.
They also helped bring about an end to colonialism and weāre so successful the advanced capitalist states had to implement a welfare state to prevent revolutions in the imperial core.
They can be trusted to give an account based on a memory of things that happened over 30 years ago, based on their own experience, their class position during and after the USSR, all influenced by folk knowledge and propaganda by Soviets and capitalists. Their view is valid data. But it is not universal data. There is no such thing.
There are few sources that I would ātrustā on their face. Oral history, ethnography, and auto-ethnography have their uses, but they have limitations. Such accounts must be understood in their political economic context.
Alright, what would be thing that would change your mind? Iām just going to focus it down to Estonia so it there would be less vagueness over the baltics (because they are still 3 different countries with different historical backgrounds). What would it take for you to believe that Estonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willingly leave the union?
So really, what is the missing part of proof that would change your mind? Why do you believe the opposite in the first place?
Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.
It depends what you mean by āthe oppositeā. I think you have misunderstood what Iām saying. Iām not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So āthe oppositeā is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didnāt and Iām not denying it. Iām saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.
I know that many people did not like the USSR. I know that the proportion of people who did not like the USSR was different in different SSRs. I know that many people suffered in the USSR, some for good reasons and some who didnāt deserve it. I know that the USSR made mistakes and that different SSRs made different mistakes. I know that the sum of errors made by the USSR led to itās dissolution.
More stories that people didnāt like the USSR is not a new argument, itās more evidence for an existing, common argument, which I have heard many times and dismissed. Youāre making it sound like you think Iāve never read that anti-Soviet narrative. But every single part of my education was anti-communist.
I started with the anti-communist history, documentaries, survey data, movies, novels, etc, and I found it all lacking in basic requirements of logic and rigour. The anti-communist narrative does not hold up to any of the standards applied to any other idea or subject. This fact should raise alarm bells for anyone who claims to think critically.
More stories about people surviving and living normal lives in the USSR, even if they disliked the USSR, suggests the opposite of what you think it does. It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly. More stories about this or that SSR that wanted to leave but ācouldnātā, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If itās proof of anything, given that we know that the USSR ended and that e.g. the Baltics are no longer in the USSR, it proves that SSRs could leave.
I hold that the USSR was still a success because itās achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the worldās second most powerful superpower in one generation, all without colonialism. Then they liberated the rest of Europe and Asia (supporting China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam) from brutal Nazis, fascists, and colonialists. Then they helped liberate much of Africa and parts of Latin America from the same brutal, murderous, terror regimes of western imperialists. There is nothing you could ever say to me that will make me think these were bad things. And I have only scratched the surface of foreign policy.
Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the āadvanced civilisationsā were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didnāt have anything close to universal education, housing, employment, healthcare, suffrage, etc. And did everything that people criticise the USSR for but on a much greater and more violent scale.
So the question is not what would change my mind, because I already have a nuanced and balanced view. The question is what would change your mind?
What would make you realise that implying that a Union of hundreds of million people, that defeated the Nazis, supported anti-colonial movements, and spanning 70 years, didnāt do a single thing right? Because to me, insisting that 6 people and a survey taken at one particular time in one particular place as representative of the facts and experience of all those millions, across a wide geography and several decades isā¦ itās not rigorous or logical, Iāll say that much.
So thatās a roundabout way of saying āno, nothing will change my mindā. Good to know and this will be the last time I will respond to you, so I will point out the stupidity of some of your statements.
Here youāre twisting what I said to say nothing. The opposite of āEstonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willing leave itā is that āEstonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave itā. Youāre just going off on a tangent to not address the point.
Some people can also live a normal life under imperialistic sphere of the US, even if they dislike US. Does that mean it suggests the opposite of your understanding of the US, and by extension capitalism? That capitalism isnāt bad?
I know, some were shot on sight, others weāre sent to jail to rot. The ones who lived had to keep their nose down to survive.
So you believe the SSRs could leave the union because the union stopped existing? By the time those countries could actually vote themselves out of the union the collapse was already inevitable. You acknowledge there was dissent and desire to leave and thatās where my question was, why couldnāt they leave before. But youāre not interested in answering that because that doesnāt suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.
Guess Nazi Germany was also a success in your book. They turned a crumbling nation into something that was an existential threat even to the USSR, all in one generation, no colonialism and only at fraction of the size of the union.
With the significant help of the good old capitalist America. USSR probably wouldnāt have survived the Nazi invasion if not for lend-lease program from America. In Khrushchev memoirs he mentions that Stalin himself said that USSR wouldnāt have won without the help from America. The USSR didnāt do this liberation on their own and they couldnāt have done it without America.
I never said they were bad things. But Mr ānuanced and balanced viewā here should be able to see how not everything the union did was good just as everything the US does is bad, as I just pointed out US is the reason the USSR didnāt lose to Nazi Germany. As is stands their actions in other parts of the world donāt invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.
Whataboutism.
Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didnāt do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they werenāt.
But itās not like youāre going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that youāre going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.
No, itās a direct way of saying that you wonāt change my mind. I didnāt wake up a Marxist one day after hitting my head or eating something spicy.
I donāt recall saying that āEstoniaā wanted to be in or out the Union. From the beginning, Iāve been saying that some people wanted in and some people wanted out. And Iāve been saying that their position is determined by their class position.
Thereās no going off on a tangent. Putting things into their political economic context is a basic element of Marxist analysis.
You have severely misunderstood my argument. Thereās too much to unpack here for me to untangle.
Are you for real? Is this really how you understand Nazi Germany? After what you said above, Iām not so sure that you are a Nazi sympathiser. Now I think you just donāt know what youāre talking about. Then again, Nazi sympathisers do like their horseshoe theories to whitewash and minimise the horrors of capitalism.
I didnāt say that you said these were bad things. I donāt recall you saying anything about these things at all and I canāt be bothered to scroll back up. I mentioned these things because you asked what would change my mind. And Iām telling you that with these positives on the record, nobody will ever convince me that the USSR was not a net benefit to humanity.
Please re-read what I said.
This is entirely beside the point. Itās you who keeps insisting on the issue. Did you forget that this all started with someone asking why communists are positive about the USSR?
If you ask someone a question about why they think X, you canāt cry āwhataboutismā when they list the reasons for thinking X.
I know you didnāt say this explicitly. But you did imply it. You came running in to a discussion about why people are positive about the USSR to say that weāre all wrong because we havenāt considered your tiny bit of evidence that some people didnāt like the Union (which we have seen and considered before, albeit in a different format). Your framing implies that our reasons are insignificant in the face of six people and a survey that disagrees.
Further, you canāt cry ātwisting my wordsā in the same breath as claiming that I said āthe other SSRs were free and democraticā when I didnāt say it. It comes off as a bitā¦ disingenuous.
Well, I did tell you not to come back at me with anti-communism because you wonāt change my mind. Iām not trying to hide that. The real mystery is what made you think you could come into an explicitly communist space and turn people into liberals with an anecdote.