Was the Stalinist Soviet Union imperialist?

[which doctor]

I've noticed a disturbing trend amongst leftists to engage in a tunnel-vision anti-imperialism where only Western imperialism is considered. Such evidence of this can be found amongst the various, often ludicrous, defense of various reactionary movements that resist only the Western form of imperialism. Such regimes often defended in the name of "anti-imperialism" include North Korea, Iran, Taliban, Venezuela, Cuba, China, Bolivia, etc. I think this form of "anti-imperialism," often employed by Maoists, and to a lesser extent, Leninists, is often specifically anti-(western)imperialism, and not a complete rejection of imperialism. If imperialism/colonialism can be seen as a symptom of expanding capital, then shouldn't we recognize that all nations that employ a capitalist mode of production posess imperialistic impulses, and thus all should be resisted. Concerning this tunnel-vision anti-imperialism, I think one can draw a parallel between it and the effectiveness of boycotts. In boycotts you are essentially tipping market relations one way or another, with the mystical belief that capitalism will reform itself as long as you tip the see-saw of consumer spending the right direction. With this anti-(western)imperialism employed by some leftists, all it does is shift the balance of influence amongst capital.

With that in mind, I'd like to point to the imperalist nature of the Soviet Union, specifically the occupation of the Baltic States by Stalin during WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Baltic_states

What sorts of ideas do people have on this event? Specifically for those who see historical defense of the actions of the Soviet Union as a form of "anti-imperialism," do you defend this event?

For further treatment of this subject, I'd recommend reading David Moore's essay, "Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Towards a Global Postcolonialist Critique" which is available as an attachment below.

[Искра]

To me Occupation of Baltic States, along with Winter War (which started because Stalin needed to "protect" Leningrad), division of Poland, post WW2 division of Europe etc. are just examples of Imperialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would not include Venezuela, Cuba or Bolivia in your list, comrade.

However, I do completely agree with the sentiment of your piece. I will not be standing up for the DPRK, Iran, Zimbabwe or any nation simply because they are not the dreaded west.

I think the USSR did become imperialist the moment the famous pact was signed. Somehow the same people who split with the rest of Social Democracy over participation in the first world war were all too eager to join in the second world war when it became clear that the Soviet banner could spread west. There became a clear difference between fighting a defensive war against the Nazis, which would be absolutely understandable, to then going all the way to Berlin.

[Random Precision]

"State capitalist" Trotskyists as well as, funnily enough, Maoists and Hoxhaists, see the Soviet Union after various points as imperialist. I think the user Ismail said somewhere that he regards various actions of the USSR under Stalin as imperialist, and that it only became a policy under the rule of Khrushchev. I'm not sure if that understanding is shared by other Maoists and Hoxhaists though.

Tony Cliff developed an outline of the peculiar features of Soviet imperialism in his State Capitalism in Russia: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch08.htm

His model is based on the Leninist outline of imperialism, rather than Luxemburg's which is used by left communists, who also view the USSR as state capitalist and imperialist. It attempts to place Soviet imperialism among the many various types which have developed in different imperialist nations. In particular he focuses on Japan as an example which had several key differences from the imperialism of Britain, France, the United States, etc.

[hefty_lefty]

Stalin was a dictator, and he paved the way for future unchecked beaurocracy in the soviet politburo. The soviet union turned into a game of who you know, who to be nice to and to who to throw under the tank.
This cut-throat power struggle has imperialistic colors, which is the reason 'soviet' states like Hungary and Czechoslovakia tried to find their own way to lead their people, or to say it like it is, to find a way for their people to lead them.
Breshnev did what he could to keep the soviet union together, mostly by force, like the Warsaw Pact and in Czechoslovakia's case, the Moscow Protocol and it's 'normalization' policy. But many countries were losing faith.
Power, money and pride. That is what the Kremlin represented through the 60's and 70's. I don't know if that makes it imperialistic in nature but it definately wasn't communist.
God bless it for trying though.

(The USSR did have a mixed system of state owned and private enterprise, it didn't abandon capitalism completely.)

[hefty_lefty]

Random, Krushchev was a reformist, maybe that's why he is seen as an imperialist?

[Ismail]

Some of Stalin's actions were objectively imperialist, in that they objectively aided Russian nationalism and encouraged unequal relations between states. Mainly, relations between the USSR and its East European allies were very unequal (though it was perhaps inevitable, as Stalin saw the states as ex-Fascist allies who invaded the Soviet Union, and because the Red Army had such a huge impact on the development of politics in these countries).

Other actions that were objectively imperialist, in that they aided the growth of a Russian labor aristocracy and Russian dominance of the USSR, were the deporting of nationalities (e.g. Crimean Tatars) encouraged by local Russian or Ukrainian chauvinism and justified due to the conditions of World War II. I would, however, lay some "blame" on Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks, too, in that they took various incorrect lines on revolution in Central Asia and laid the seeds for a Russian-dominated state.

It was Khrushchev, however, who established the Warsaw Pact, encouraged a "specialization" policy which made it so WP industries would be focused around Soviet needs, who invaded Hungary (and whose successor invaded Czechoslovakia), who threatened to coup Albania for not condemning Stalin, who threatened to coup the DPRK for not condemning Stalin, etc. It was Brezhnev who formulated the "Brezhnev Doctrine," invaded Afghanistan, etc.

Compared with that, Stalin by comparison just put the fight against Russian chauvinism on the backburner (due to pressures throughout the 30's and WWII in the 40's) and relations between the USSR and its East European allies were unequal. The USSR's growth and newly-established allies, however, provided fertile ground for social-imperialism to grow and prosper.

I would not necessarily put the Baltics as an imperialist action. From what I know of the situation, many peasants and such were glad to be liberated as many Communists were freed from their prison cells (Latvia and Lithuania were quasi-Fascist, pro-German states, while Estonia was rightist). Sovereignty was an issue, but the point of the SSRs was to establish Republics within the Soviet Union with their own governments, languages, etc. Stalin fared better at this than, say, Brezhnev (who tried to remove Georgian as a language of the Georgian SSR in 1978; but protests put a stop to that). Also, the Baltic states were not economically exploited. They actually became very important SSRs economically, and if anything there was a Baltic labor aristocracy built from the real exploited labor (developed into an exploitative fashion in the 60's and 70's) in Central Asia, much like the Russian labor-aristocracy profited from this development.

As for Poland: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

The "division" of Poland was a line of influence. In the event of war from either Germany or the USSR against Poland, neither side would pass it. When the Germans invaded Poland and the Polish government fled and dissolved, the Soviets upheld their end of the line. There's some moral ambiguity (since it was the USSR being forced to come to the negotiating table with Germany after both France and the UK refused to unite with the USSR against Fascism, and Stalin and Co. did expect the Germans to invade; hence the calls for a line of influence), but it wasn't an invasion of a sovereign state.

[hefty_lefty]

Pardon my mistake.

Though I cannot warm my heart to Stalin, or the paranoids that took his place after him.
Prosecuting good communists, devout believers of the cause...for what? To maintain their positions and inflated salaries?

Like I said, it was a good attempt, an honest start...but it went horribly wrong. Somewhere along the path to communism the humanist aspect of it was lost and communism was a goal on it's own. It was no longer about listening to the people's needs but rather to prove that communism works, at any cost.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some of Stalin's actions were objectively imperialist

Good critique, Ismail. :) Now, on to the specifics:


Mainly, relations between the USSR and its East European allies were very unequal (though it was perhaps inevitable, as Stalin saw the states as ex-Fascist allies who invaded the Soviet Union, and because the Red Army had such a huge impact on the development of politics in these countries).

I don't see the Soviet military occupation of Eastern Europe (or even the Baltic states) as "imperialist" even on Lenin's fifth criteria. The military occupation was meant to prevent another invasion of the Soviet Union from the west.

Both the massive transfer of industrial equipment from Eastern Europe under Stalin and the subsequent trade-price subsidies (favouring Eastern Europe) under his successors were not imperialist, either.


Other actions that were objectively imperialist, in that they aided the growth of a Russian labor aristocracy and Russian dominance of the USSR, were the deporting of nationalities (e.g. Crimean Tatars) encouraged by local Russian or Ukrainian chauvinism and justified due to the conditions of World War II. I would, however, lay some "blame" on Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks, too, in that they took various incorrect lines on revolution in Central Asia and laid the seeds for a Russian-dominated state.

Perhaps you could explain the Bolshevik error here in greater detail.

For certain ultra-left groups, this would mean that even the Bolsheviks were imperialists, since to them every private-capitalist and state-capitalist regime is imperialist (right down to Venezuela and even below). :rolleyes:


It was Khrushchev, however, who established the Warsaw Pact

Per the above, the military agreement was not imperialist.


encouraged a "specialization" policy which made it so WP industries would be focused around Soviet needs

The problem is that the various Marxist theories of imperialism do not consider inflows of consumer goods and services as a component of imperialism. Rosa Luxemburg's take on imperialism was one whereby the imperialist powers themselves, with solid manufacturing bases, dumped goods into the colonies.

You did not mention the one area where the Soviets were imperialist: the export of capital under Stalin's successors, most notably in the case of Egypt's Aswan Dam (and perhaps other African countries, too).

[Ismail]

Perhaps you could explain the Bolshevik error here in greater detail.Basically, the Bolsheviks believed that it was necessary for the Central Asian Communists to learn from Russians and to be "brought up" by Russians. Furthermore, Russians (and Ukrainains) had basically a monopoly on power. Affirmative Action Empire is a good read on the subject of nations and nationalism under Stalin. Under Lenin and Stalin there were attempts (and they were quite successful) in encouraging native peoples to attain power in their SSRs, but by the 1980's this just resulted in comprador types who basically just carried out Russian interests.

To quote from older posts:


I take Mirza Sultan-Galiev's line on Russia (he was purged for trying to ally with Trotsky, who wasn't willing to ally with him, against Stalin). The USSR was Russo-centric, and the development of a labor aristocracy among such lines was nigh inevitable unless the Central Asian SSRs were given true self-rule, otherwise the situation would centralize (as it did) and turn the SSRs into de facto administrative regions rather than independent Republics within a Union.

As noted in The Middle East in Transition: Studies in Contemporary History (1958, pp. 401-2):
But what is most original in Sultan Galiev is that, starting from the Marxian theory created in reaction to Western industrialism, he modified and adapted it to the needs of an Asiatic, and essentially agrarian, society. Well aware that Communism was endangered by its dependence upon the Germanic model alone, Sultan Galiev also denied that the interpretation of dialectical materialism could be a Russian monopoly; for he knew that as soon as Russia was industrialized, the German prototype would become the Russian one and give birth to a Greater-Russian chauvinism superposed upon Communism...

Finally, the keystone of his system was to be a union of colonized peoples against the industrial metropolitans, for Galiev held that the Western proletariat, which inherited the bourgeois colonial tradition, would be as great a menace as the bourgeoisie had been to the colonized peoples. With this aim, Sultan Galiev drew up a scheme for a colonial International, independent of the Comintern. He justified his distrust of the Western proletariat by citing instances of the 'colonialist' attitudes of the French and English working classes.

[...]


Galiev's attitude of mistrust was wholly justified by the actions of the Communist authorities during the Revolution, for the pretext of the struggle between classes in the Mohammedan fringe was abused by the Russians in order to usurp all the positions in the party and the administration. As the President Kolesov had said, at the Third Regional Congress of Soviets of Turkestan: "One cannot let the Mohammedans into the highest organs of revolutionary authority on account of the uncertain attitude of the local population towards the power of the Soviets, and because the native population lacks a proletarian organization. We cannot therefore let them take part in the government." (Nasha Gazeta (Tashkent), November 28, 1917.)



And:


... as noted in A Peace to End All Peace (p. 476):

The Bashkir leader, Zeki Velidi Togan, writes (years later) that in 1920 Lenin had told him that the problem in the colonial countries was that they lacked a proletariat. In communist theory the proletariat was to dictate and to lead, but the peasantry of the East did not have an industrial working class to do that for them. In effect this meant that the peoples of the East were not yet ready to exercise their right to be free. According to Togan, Lenin said that even after the socialist revolution had succeeded everywhere in the world, the former colonies of the European Great Powers would have to remain in tutelage to their former masters until such a time as they developed an industrial working class of their own.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That last quote there was in fact the line of the Second International. Even my views might be suspect on this: labour credits for the advanced countries, "monetary socialism" for everyone else until they're developed.

[Weezer]

inb4 Mao's Social Imperialism theory.

[Ismail]

inb4 Mao's Social Imperialism theory.Well that's what Maoists and Hoxhaists support, so yeah.

[Devrim]

His model is based on the Leninist outline of imperialism, rather than Luxemburg's which is used by left communists, who also view the USSR as state capitalist and imperialist. It attempts to place Soviet imperialism among the many various types which have developed in different imperialist nations. In particular he focuses on Japan as an example which had several key differences from the imperialism of Britain, France, the United States, etc.

RP is not entirely correct on this point. The ICC does use this outline, and the left communists who post on here do. Others left communists though use the Leninist outline.

[chegitz guevara]

Was the Soviet Union imperialist? Clearly. So is/was the People's Republic of China. Both marched their armies into independent territories and annexed them.

However, this is not what Marxists usually mean by imperialism. Our understanding of imperialism comes from Lenin and others. Thus, it isn't merely whose flag is flying over a particular territory. As American imperialism well shows, we can be global imperialists without our flag flying there.

Even the export of capital isn't necessarily indicative of imperialism. The Soviets didn't rebuild Central Europe because a falling rate of profit in the USSR forced them to seek investments elsewhere. One of the key problems of the USSR was a lack of capital for investment in the core country, so development both in the Warsaw Pact states and in the Third World came at the expense of development in the USSR, not to fatten the Soviet bureaucrats bottom line.

The truth is, the USSR needed to buy its friends, even where it had military supremacy.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It was undoubtedly an Imperialist power. I don't know what else you could say about the nations they put under Moscow's control. It was, as all Capitalist nation-states aspire to be, an empire.

[KC]

Edit

[Comrade Gwydion]

For one thing, I defend Venezuela and Bolivia because I actually support those regimes, not just because they're anti-imperialistic.

Second, rest of the discussion will only result in a trots vs. stalino-tankie vs. anarchokids spamfest, which I don't really care for.
I don't support any of the other regimes mentioned, although if Cuba takes a more democratic course after the Castro brothers are gone (or perhaps it could allready happen during Raùl's time), it could become a fucking paradise.

[Ismail]

Second, rest of the discussion will only result in a trots vs. stalino-tankie vs. anarchokids spamfest, which I don't really care for.I'm a Trotskyist? News to me. Maoists and Hoxhaists do condemn tankies (Brezhnevites), though.


although if Cuba takes a more democratic course after the Castro brothers are gone (or perhaps it could allready happen during Raùl's time), it could become a fucking paradise.The only route now for state-capitalist Cuba is market-capitalism.


For one thing, I defend Venezuela and Bolivia because I actually support those regimes, not just because they're anti-imperialistic.At least this explains your defense of Cuba. I, on the other hand, defend them as progressive anti-imperialist states. I would say that Morales is better than Chávez, though.

[which doctor]

For one thing, I defend Venezuela and Bolivia because I actually support those regimes, not just because they're anti-imperialistic.

How do you feel about Chavez politically aligning himself with Ahmadinejad in the name of anti-imperialism?

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the user Ismail said somewhere that he regards various actions of the USSR under Stalin as imperialist

Except, Marxists don't evaluate whether countries are imperialist or not in terms of whether a given number of their actions, whatever that means, can be seen as cases of imperialism, and we also don't believe that a country being imperialist is dependent on a particular government being in power, or the government following a particular foreign policy. Rather, we acknowledge that imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism, such that what makes countries imperialist is the position they occupy within the capitalist world-system, and in particular whether they are net exporters or importers of capital, although this is by no means the only feature that can make a country imperialist, as we can see from Cliff's analysis of imperialism in Japan, where the surplus of capital that normally requires imperialist expansion in order to avoid a falling rate of profit within the domestic economy did not exist due to almost all of the economy being owned and managed by the state. In the case of the USSR it was a drive to take control of technical and natural resources that led her to take control of territories such as Manchuria, this drive being a result of the imperatives of military competition with the United States, especially during the Cold War, although the SWP argues that the USSR became an imperialist power at the same time as becoming state-capitalist, in 1928.


Random, Krushchev was a reformist, maybe that's why he is seen as an imperialist?

A reformist is someone who limits their struggles to the confines of the bourgeois political system or who believes that it is possible to abolish capitalism through peaceful reform alone, and so, given that Kruschchev was a member of a ruling bureaucracy, and sought to defend capitalism throughout the world, I don't see how he can be regarded as a reformist, as reformism implies an opposition relation, albeit one based on a highly flawed understanding of capitalism and the nature of the state.

[A.R.Amistad]

How do you feel about Chavez politically aligning himself with Ahmadinejad in the name of anti-imperialism?

Understandable on the basis that they need all of the economic and military support tey can get. But I don't like it. Its one of the things that makes me somewhat skeptical of Chavez' leadership. I personally don't like Cuba, whose regime I generally support, allying itself with the Russian State under Putin, but I know they have little choice, economically speaking.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Rather, we acknowledge that imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism, such that what makes countries imperialist

"Such that what makes"? I, of course, agree with the first half of what you've said here, I don't follow you in the second half though. Could you re-phrase it.


the SWP argues that the USSR became an imperialist power at the same time as becoming state-capitalist, in 1928.

The great mystery is what it was in 1927 (or 1921, or 1918, for that matter).

[Comrade Gwydion]

I'm a Trotskyist? News to me. Maoists and Hoxhaists do condemn tankies (Brezhnevites), though.

The only route now for state-capitalist Cuba is market-capitalism.

At least this explains your defense of Cuba. I, on the other hand, defend them as progressive anti-imperialist states. I would say that Morales is better than Chávez, though.

First of, mate, I didn't say you were a Trotskyist. I was just saying that most discussions about USSR end in trots vs stalinists. I am on the Trot-side myselve, I just don't care for these flamefests.


How do you feel about Chavez politically aligning himself with Ahmadinejad in the name of anti-imperialism?

What he says --->

Understandable on the basis that they need all of the economic and military support tey can get. But I don't like it. Its one of the things that makes me somewhat skeptical of Chavez' leadership.

However, I do think Chavez takes it a bit to far: he calls Ahmadinejad and Iran natural allies and these kind of statements. However, Obama, Brown, and Balkende to name a few are just as well friends with 'wrong' regimes.

[Ismail]

Except, Marxists don't evaluate whether countries are imperialist or not in terms of whether a given number of their actions... In the case of the USSR it was a drive to take control of technical and natural resources that led her to take control of territories such as Manchuria, this drive being a result of the imperatives of military competition with the United States, especially during the Cold WarI guess Manchuria doesn't count as an action, then. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that we're arguing "X person did one imperialist act while Y did 2, ergo Y is more imperialist," when we're not.


and we also don't believe that a country being imperialist is dependent on a particular government being in power... although the SWP argues that the USSR became an imperialist power at the same time as becoming state-capitalist, in 1928.The year Stalin basically defeated the Trotskyists politically?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Morales is better than Chavez?

Latin America’s Twenty-First Century Socialism in Historical Perspective (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57194.shtml)


All variants of 20th century socialism – except the Scandinavian model – achieved greater public control over the commanding heights of the economy than their 21st century counterparts. Venezuela is the closest approximation of the 20th century experience.

[...]

In terms of social welfare, 21st century socialist have increased social spending, raised the minimum wage but with the notable exception of Venezuela, do not match the universal free public health and educational programs financed by the 20th century socialism.

[...]

Today’s 21cs with the partial exception of Venezuela have provided no material support for ongoing liberation struggles.

And like the Paris Commune, Venezuela has communal councils.

[Ismail]

Morales is better than Chavez?I would say he's affecting far greater social change by giving natives equality in the face of resistance from reactionary Spaniards.

[ReggaeCat]

Look by my side of view....having a good cccp under comrade stalin guide..it would be my pleause to have the red army in greece...or albania(again)....imperialist is when american goes to iraq says it has to defeat sadam then it is still there....that's what's imperialist.Going to a country to give them something better why on hell is imperialistic???also..who said workers in albania or cccp had no voice and stuff...when you work at a factory you always gathered up and discussed on how to achieve the party's goal wich the achievement was always higher than the goal...also how can trotskyist be still trotskyist when in the 40's when russia had to fight those nazi scum...trotsky was shouting about people overthrow stalin...dont forget buharin and tokaief.that's all.xD

[pranabjyoti]

Look by my side of view....having a good cccp under comrade stalin guide..it would be my pleause to have the red army in greece...or albania(again)....imperialist is when american goes to iraq says it has to defeat sadam then it is still there....that's what's imperialist.Going to a country to give them something better why on hell is imperialistic???also..who said workers in albania or cccp had no voice and stuff...when you work at a factory you always gathered up and discussed on how to achieve the party's goal wich the achievement was always higher than the goal...also how can trotskyist be still trotskyist when in the 40's when russia had to fight those nazi scum...trotsky was shouting about people overthrow stalin...dont forget buharin and tokaief.that's all.xD
Ya, helping countries to free from Nazi occupation and invading a country for oil ARE SAME. What a wonderful revolutionary line of logic. By the way, on the basis of which documents you want to rewrite HISTORY?

[FSL]

Ya, helping countries to free from Nazi occupation and invading a country for oil ARE SAME. What a wonderful revolutionary line of logic. By the way, on the basis of which documents you want to rewrite HISTORY?


You misunderstood.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Two things:
-"Stalinism" doesn't exist, what many call "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism, nothing else. Stalin didn't invent or start another theory or political ideology, but continued the ideals of Marx, Engels and Lenin and put them into practice.
- Arguing that Stalin-era USSR was imperialist shows massive ignorance about the objective situation of the USSR in those days. Stalin did everything that was necessary to maintain Socialism: combatting bureaucracy, throwing all revisionist and capitalist elements out of the CPSU, destroying the classes and fascist agents that wanted to destroy the USSR and reinstall capitalism, fighting fascism and imperialism when it invaded the USSR.

Stalin has done to much to mention in one post. If anyone has any particular objections against Stalin, just tell me, I'll be glad to show the other view of Stalin, the truth behind the lies that are told about him. If any opponent of Stalin, probably blinded by capitalist propaganda, wishes to start a discussion about a particular area of Stalin's actions, just tell me.

[KC]

Edit

[KC]

Edit

[Devrim]

the SWP argues that the USSR became an imperialist power at the same time as becoming state-capitalist, in 1928.
The great mystery is what it was in 1927 (or 1921, or 1918, for that matter).

This is one of the places where Cliff's theory of state capitalism falls down, and is a very easy target for orthodox Trotskyists, not that their ideas are any better. Basically on an economic level nothing really changes at this point unless he meant the introduction of the first five year plan, which didn't fundamentally change the relationship to the means of production.

A much more logical line would be to say that the NEP introduced state capitalism in 1921, but of course that wouldn't fit because at that point Lenin and Trostky were still at the helm.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Two things:
-"Stalinism" doesn't exist, what many call "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism, nothing else. Stalin didn't invent or start another theory or political ideology, but continued the ideals of Marx, Engels and Lenin and put them into practice.
- Arguing that Stalin-era USSR was imperialist shows massive ignorance about the objective situation of the USSR in those days. Stalin did everything that was necessary to maintain Socialism: combatting bureaucracy, throwing all revisionist and capitalist elements out of the CPSU, destroying the classes and fascist agents that wanted to destroy the USSR and reinstall capitalism, fighting fascism and imperialism when it invaded the USSR.

Stalin has done to much to mention in one post. If anyone has any particular objections against Stalin, just tell me, I'll be glad to show the other view of Stalin, the truth behind the lies that are told about him. If any opponent of Stalin, probably blinded by capitalist propaganda, wishes to start a discussion about a particular area of Stalin's actions, just tell me.

:lol:

It may come as a shock to you, but some of us are intelligent enough to see through the combined propaganda about Stalin pushed around by both the Capitalists and your camp.

[Das war einmal]

Not if you consider imperialism the goal to strive for an empire. The goal for the USSR was to export and expand socialism in other countries and the eventual abolisment of the state.

[Yehuda Stern]

The goal for the USSR was to export and expand socialism in other countries and the eventual abolisment of the state.

I bet you can't back this ridiculous assertion with even a single piece of evidence. Every example one can think of shows the USSR sabotaging proletarian uprisings and strangling them where it could, in the name of "unity against fascism" or "co-existence".

[Ismail]

Every example one can think of shows the USSR sabotaging proletarian uprisings and strangling them where it could, in the name of "unity against fascism"Care to give examples? The only "revolution" I could see here is Spain, which did indeed have a "revolution" in 1931 which overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed the Second Republic. If you're going to mention Barcelona, then using this logic one could mention Kronstadt.

Fact is, by 1939, the main anti-fascist force in Spain (in the eyes of the people; if not then it was second to the PSOE) was the PCE. Noting the various reasons the Republic lost the war ("nonintervention" from the Western powers meaning limited aid sent to the Republic and a free hand for the Fascists, the well-trained and well-equipped armies of Franco with heavy Italian and German support), another reason is that most of the bourgeois leaders were actually afraid of the PCE, such as Julián Besteiro (whose line of reasoning was "If we lose now, we submit to Fascism; if we win, the Communists win, so let's choose Fascism instead) and Casado; the man who launched a coup d'état and who, under the pretext that Negrín was "deceiving the people,"* submitted to Franco's forces.

Lenin called for a revolution against the Tsar; for the Duma; for bourgeois democracy not because he was a reformist, but because the proletariat would know what a farce bourgeois democracy was compared even with that of the feudal-bourgeois dictatorship of the Tsar (and it was what the proletariat was asking for in the first place). With Kerensky and Co. discredited, the Bolsheviks easily moved from the national-democratic to the socialist stage of the revolution.

The Fifth Regiment and the International Brigades both strengthened the influence of the Communists among the populace. Had the civil war been won, it isn't unlikely that the Communists would have been in a leading position. You could say "Oh, well, but they're Stalinists," yet the point still stands.**


or "co-existence".Once again, examples needed.

* "On Tuesday, March 28, 1939, at 11:00 a.m., Fascist troops entered Madrid... Julián Besteiro had broadcast to the Madrid populace that 'Juan Negrín had been guilty of deceiving the people with false hopes of new armament, and of a world war which would merge the Spanish struggle into a victorious war against the Fascist powers.'" (G. Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1965, p. 472. Cited in A.H. Landis, Spain! The Unfinished Revolution, 1973, p. 404.)
** Probably worth noting that even when they lost the war, they were still very popular. "A social studies firm, ODESSA, retained by the Franco government to determine the actual sentiments of the Spanish people, if they were allowed to express themselves in open elections, gives the following report for 1971: Communists and Left-Socialists 40.9%; Christian Democrats, 40.5; Liberals, 13%; Social Democrats, 4.0%." (National Guardian, April 16, 1971. Cited in Landis, p. 407.)

[x359594]

Certainly after WWII the Soviet Union entered an imperialist phase out of economic necessity.

In order to continually feed the expanding heavy-industrial program started in the 1930s, the USSR needed sources of labor and raw materials, as well as constant sources of new investible surplus. The lack of investment in the agrarian sector limited the amount of resources which could be diverted from it to the industrial program, and quickly led to a "labor crunch" in the Soviet economy, exacerbated by losses during the war. This in turn slowed the rate of industrial growth.

The solution to this problem lay in extra-national expansion in a search for new labor sources. The USSR was therefore driven by economic pressures into an expansionistic foreign policy, and was driven to seize and hold its own economic colonies. After installing pliant comprador states on its western periphery, the USSR imposed heavily lopsided trade agreements and economic alliances which were of benefit to the Soviet economy. The Soviets used the Comecon economic "alliance" to utilize Eastern European labor and resources to produce subassemblies which were shipped back to Russia, assembled there and then sold back to the Eastern Europeans at inflated prices. In essence, the Soviet Union used the Comecon structure, propped up by the Warsaw Pact military network, to siphon resources from Eastern Europe for investment in the Soviet economy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not if you consider imperialism the goal to strive for an empire. The goal for the USSR was to export and expand socialism in other countries and the eventual abolisment of the state.

You cannot bring about Socialism 'from above.'

It is not a good or service that can merely be exported. Socialism is a state of superior democracy, intellectualism and moral correctness that can only 'exist' once its cause is in the hearts and minds of the entire working class of a nation.

To export it and place it under the guidance of antiquated puppet leaders is not to advance the cause of Socialism. It merely gives the Capitalists ammunition, and renders void the possibility of enthusing a population to carry out Socialism's tasks.

Then again, if you are the sort of person who considers a country Socialist when the Communist Party dominated state owns everything of relevance, then perhaps imperialism is for you.:rolleyes:

[Das war einmal]

You cannot bring about Socialism 'from above.'

It is not a good or service that can merely be exported. Socialism is a state of superior democracy, intellectualism and moral correctness that can only 'exist' once its cause is in the hearts and minds of the entire working class of a nation.


Hah and what about the revolutions in Eastern Europe around 1917 who were crushed by reactionary forces? Those countries who then later supported the Axis and send troops to combat the Soviet Union? There was no other way of exporting the revolution other then by crushing those reactionary governments. By the Red Army of Workers and Peasants.

[ComradeMan]

All states will become imperialist if they are successful (moderately) or will be destroyed in trying. A state in itself is a micro-empire once it has established itself it will naturally look over its own borders.

[bailey_187]

All states will become imperialist if they are successful (moderately) or will be destroyed in trying. A state in itself is a micro-empire once it has established itself it will naturally look over its own borders.

If all nations are Imperialist or destroyed, what nations do the Imperialists fight with eachother to exploit? If a nation is itself exploited by another nation, it can not be called Imperialist.
Without nations to exploit, there is no Imperialism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If a nation is itself exploited by another nation, it can not be called Imperialist.

Why not?

Can an oppressed nation not also be an oppressor nation?

[4 Leaf Clover]

do you people know definiton of world imperialism ? this question is non-sense , soviet union wasnt a capitalist country that lead war in other countries to take their good , exploit their workers , or enslave other nations...

[Niccolò Rossi]

do you people know definiton of world imperialism ? this question is non-sense , soviet union wasnt a capitalist country that lead war in other countries to take their good , exploit their workers , or enslave other nations...

I'll let you in on a secret, there are some people out there (including the largest self-described socialist organisations in the UK and the US) which did view the USSR as capitalist, and continue to regard the reamaing 'socialist' states in the same vein.

[x359594]

All states will become imperialist if they are successful (moderately) or will be destroyed in trying. A state in itself is a micro-empire once it has established itself it will naturally look over its own borders.

True enough if that's qualified by capitalist (including the state capitalism of the Leninist mode of production.)

[A.R.Amistad]

and how do you describe the stipulations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact if not imperialist?

[Niccolò Rossi]

and how do you describe the stipulations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact if not imperialist?

This was not the Trotskyist position though.

"The social character of the USSR is not determined by her friendship with democracy or fascism" and specifically not "dependent upon the German-Soviet pact" (A latter to James P. Cannon, September 12, 1939).

[A.R.Amistad]

This was not the Trotskyist position though.

Just because this wasn't the viewpoint at the time doesn't mean it's not true. I am not saying that the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union who were trying to maintain the soviet democracy were imperialist. Of course, the Bolshevik position is that it was the Stalinist bureaucracy that was imperialist. It was Stalin, Molotov and the rest of the Politburo, not the soviets, who decided to divide eastern Europe into spheres of Nazi and Stalinist "influence." The evidence of alienation of the toiling masses from the state is evidenced by the fact that when Hitler broke the pact and invaded the USSR, the Red Army at first could do little and it was up to revolutionaries within these republics to organize Partisan militias to combat the Axis. In other words, the Imperialist Stalinist bureaucracy fell flat on its face with it's imperial policy and left the toiling masses fend for themselves in fighting fascism. It wasn't until the Partisan forces put a big enough thorn in the Axis' ass that we saw real Red Army action like in Stalingrad.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I am not saying that the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union who were trying to maintain the soviet democracy were imperialist. Of course, the Bolshevik position is that it was the Stalinist bureaucracy that was imperialist. It was Stalin, Molotov and the rest of the Politburo, not the soviets, who decided to divide eastern Europe into spheres of Nazi and Stalinist "influence." The evidence of alienation of the toiling masses from the state is evidenced by the fact that when Hitler broke the pact and invaded the USSR, the Red Army at first could do little and it was up to revolutionaries within these republics to organize Partisan militias to combat the Axis. In other words, the Imperialist Stalinist bureaucracy fell flat on its face with it's imperial policy and left the toiling masses fend for themselves in fighting fascism. It wasn't until the Partisan forces put a big enough thorn in the Axis' ass that we saw real Red Army action like in Stalingrad.

Of course the working class in the USSR was not imperialist. How can the working class of any nation be imperialist?

Trotsky very clearly upheld the position that the USSR was not imperialist, nor could it be. For Trotsky, the fact that the Stalinist bureaucracy made alliances with Nazi Germany had no influence what so ever on the class nature of the Russian State or whether or not it was imperialist.

Of course, you are welcome to disagree with Trotsky. I do. Of course, it's easier for me. I'm not a member of a group which claims to be in direct continuity with Trotsky and the original Fourth International.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

:laugh:

This post is pure gold.

Do you have a photo of Stalin next to your bed that you look at every night when you go to bed and every morning when you wake up?
I could ask the same to you, only by replacing "Stalin" with "Trotsky".
But since that would be an utter useless non-argument I'm not going to do it.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

:lol:

It may come as a shock to you, but some of us are intelligent enough to see through the combined propaganda about Stalin pushed around by both the Capitalists and your camp.
No, apparantly you are "intelligent" enough to believe the bullshit the official media of your capitalist fatherland is ramming into your brains.

I live in Belgium, mate. I also hated Stalin, at least untill i began t think for myself, instead of accepting the bias the capitalist propaganda machine wants me to believe.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Still I have heard no concrete argument as to why the hell Stalin-era USSR would be imperialist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't believe i've ever said the USSR under Stalin was hell.

The USSR was imperialist because its stated aim with the signature of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was to advance its borders westward into Poland, since it was pretty obvious that Hitler would break the pact. Moreover, the establishment of the GDR was completely anti-revolutionary in spirit. I'm not sure how you can twist the enaction of the East German state by forces other than the workers (the Kremlin, namely), into anything other than an imperialist event.

It is pretty insulting that you accuse me of accepting 'bias', just because I fundamentally disagree with you about the nature of the USSR under Stalin, and indeed the nature of the man himself. Surely if I was prisoner to my 'Capitalist fatherland's official media' I would be saying that Stalin caused WW2, killed 50million people, the USSR was hell on earth between 1929-53 and other such similar statements.

The fact that I recognise the stupidity and indeed the bias of such statements shows that, fair from being held captive by the propaganda of Conquest and the like, I have reached my own conclusions about Stalin through independent thought and analysis. There is no need to be bitter just because we have polarised opinions on the man.