Can USSR action be seen as imperialist?

[Triple A]

I was thinking and I wanted to know your opinion.
Are pre-ww2 soviet action in finland, baltic countries and poland imperialist?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

From my understanding, the war against Finland was completely aggressive and unnecessary. Finland ceded 11% of its territory and 30% of it's economic assets. Sounds pretty imperialist.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Finland was a pro-Nazi quasi-fascist state. The USSR only invaded after Finland straight-up refused to even lease the USSR certain ports that they needed to defend Leningrad

[Ocean Seal]

I was thinking and I wanted to know your opinion.
Are pre-ww2 soviet action in finland, baltic countries and poland imperialist?
It was state interest really. Not so much imperialism but a buffer between it and Nazi Germany. In a sense some could say that it was to stop fascism. I'm not sure how good an idea it was, but let's ask a better question. What is it that should have been done?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

The Baltic countries and Poland were all either extremely right-wing or straight-up fascist states as well. Should be mentioned as well apparently most peasants in the Baltics welcomed the Red Army I think I read, and the part of Poland they took over was actually the parts of Belarus and Ukraine that Poland had itself annexed during the Polish-Soviet War

[Magón]

Well Finland was apart of Russia at one point before the Revolution, and broke from Russia during the Revolution. So yeah, I see it Imperialist because the USSR was trying to get back the territory it had lost even before the Bolsheviks were in charge.

[Triple A]

Finland was a pro-Nazi quasi-fascist state. The USSR only invaded after Finland straight-up refused to even lease the USSR certain ports that they needed to defend Leningrad

Wasnt that the excuse Germany used to seize Danzig?


The Baltic countries and Poland were all either extremely right-wing or straight-up fascist states as well. Should be mentioned as well apparently most peasants in the Baltics welcomed the Red Army I think I read, and the part of Poland they took over was actually the parts of Belarus and Ukraine that Poland had itself annexed during the Polish-Soviet War

I wasnt aware of the situation of pesantry.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Wasnt that the excuse Germany used to seize Danzig?

The Nazis were the Nazis though

[Cyberwave]

From my understanding, the war against Finland was completely aggressive and unnecessary. Finland ceded 11% of its territory and 30% of it's economic assets. Sounds pretty imperialist.

I advise you to take a look at this; it is a highly detailed Marxist-Leninist perspective of the Soviet's relations with Finland. (http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/CL-FINLANDWAR90.html)

And here is something on Poland as well. (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html)

[Jose Gracchus]

LOL @ "Look, we had to ally ourselves with the Uber-Fascists so we could have some time to conquer and crush pipsqueak tiny "fascists"!"

[Marxach-Léinínach]

LOL @ "Look, we had to ally ourselves with the Uber-Fascists so we could have some time to conquer and crush pipsqueak tiny "fascists"!"

I dread to think how the war would've gone if the Nazis had invaded the USSR with its pre-1939 borders

[Ocean Seal]

LOL @ "Look, we had to ally ourselves with the Uber-Fascists so we could have some time to conquer and crush pipsqueak tiny "fascists"!" And then crush the Uber-Fascists
You missed something in your post.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The more "imperialist" of the actions if anything was the transfer of capital goods such as factories and resources as war-reparations from the post-war states such as DDR, early Romania and a like to the Soviet Union which continued till the mid-late 50's, which in cases included setting up local enterprises specifically for the purpose extracting and transferring.

[Jose Gracchus]

Except the USSR could have went to war with the Nazis in 1940 when they were occupied in the West, and would've won, though probably that would require Stalin and his not butchering the advanced officer corps of the Soviet army. Except the USSR sold goods and parts and raw materials to the Nazis enabling their war build-up and stock accumulation (which was used against the USSR in short order).

Nothing the USSR did in 1938-1941 resembles anything like the shrewd self-reliance and defense that Stalinists delude, but straight geopolitical and strategic blunder. Stalin remained just as much of a military imbecile as when he helped fuck up the Polish War.

[Reznov]

I dread to think how the war would've gone if the Nazis had invaded the USSR with its pre-1939 borders

Following this line of thought, any act of Imperialism can be justified so long as it stops Fascist and Capitalist imperialism (WW2, Soviet Afghanistan involvement)

We are against Imperialism, regardless of whatever form it takes.

[Triple A]

Except the USSR could have went to war with the Nazis in 1940 when they were occupied in the West, and would've won, though probably that would require Stalin and his not butchering the advanced officer corps of the Soviet army. Except the USSR sold goods and parts and raw materials to the Nazis enabling their war build-up and stock accumulation (which was used against the USSR in short order).

Nothing the USSR did in 1938-1941 resembles anything like the shrewd self-reliance and defense that Stalinists delude, but straight geopolitical and strategic blunder. Stalin remained just as much of a military imbecile as when he helped fuck up the Polish War.

USSR raw materials were essential to the german war effort.
So were things from all over europe like norwegian steel and portuguese wolfram.


I saw a crazy documentary were they said that half an hour before german inavsion USSR sent them a train filled with food that would be later used by germans in the eastern front.

[Paul Cockshott]

Nothing the USSR did in 1938-1941 resembles anything like the shrewd self-reliance and defense that Stalinists delude, but straight geopolitical and strategic blunder. Stalin remained just as much of a military imbecile as when he helped fuck up the Polish War.

In retrospect it was a series of mistakes with terrible consequences. But of course Stalin was not the only foreign leader that Hiitler managed to out manoeuvre.

[Rss]

You can always trust lib loonies of the left defend the likes of Mannerheim the Bloody, even if it's indirect.

I'm still wondering why that fucker wasn't shot after war.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Following this line of thought, any act of Imperialism can be justified so long as it stops Fascist and Capitalist imperialism (WW2, Soviet Afghanistan involvement)

We are against Imperialism, regardless of whatever form it takes.

If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivable

[Rafiq]

The Nazis were the Nazis though

Such concrete Marxist analysis....

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Except the USSR could have went to war with the Nazis in 1940 when they were occupied in the West, and would've won, though probably that would require Stalin and his not butchering the advanced officer corps of the Soviet army. Except the USSR sold goods and parts and raw materials to the Nazis enabling their war build-up and stock accumulation (which was used against the USSR in short order).

Nothing the USSR did in 1938-1941 resembles anything like the shrewd self-reliance and defense that Stalinists delude, but straight geopolitical and strategic blunder. Stalin remained just as much of a military imbecile as when he helped fuck up the Polish War.




Did Stalin poorly prepare the anti-fascist war?
When Khrushchev seized power, he completely inverted the Party's line. To do this, he denigrated Stalin and his Marxist-Leninist politics. In a series of incredible slanders, he even denied Stalin's lead in preparing for and undertaking the anti-fascist war.

So Khrushchev claimed that in the years 1936--1941, Stalin poorly prepared the country for war. Here are his statements.

`Stalin put forward the thesis that the tragedy ... was the result of the result of the ``unexpected'' attack of the Germans against the Soviet Union. But, comrades, this is completely untrue. As soon as Hitler came to power in Germany he assigned to himself the task of liquidating Communism ....

`Many facts from the prewar period clearly showed that Hitler was going all out to begin a war against the Soviet state ....

`Had our industry been mobilized properly and in time to supply the Army with the necessary matériel, our wartime losses would have been decidedly smaller ....

`(O)ur Army was badly armed ....

`Soviet science and technology produced excellent models of tanks and artillery peoces before the war. But mass production of all this was not organized'.

.

Khrushchev, Secret Report, pp. S36, S38.

That the participants in the Twentieth Congress could listen to these slanders without indignant protests coming from every part says a lot about the political degeneration that had already taken place. In the room, there were dozens of marshals and generals who knew to what extent those statements were ridiculous. At the time, they did not say anything. Their narrow professionalism, their exclusive militarism, their refusal of political struggle within the Army, their refusal of the ideological and political leadership of the Party over the Army: these factors all brought them closer to Khrushchev's revisionism. Zhukov, Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, all great military leaders, never accepted the necessity of the Army Purge in 1937--1938. Nor did they understand the political implications of Bukharin's trial. Hence they supported Khrushchev when he replaced Marxism-Leninism with theses taken from the Mensheviks, the Trotskyists and the Bukharinists. There is the explanation for the marshals' silence over Khrushchev's lies about the Second World War. They refuted these lies later on in their memoirs, when there were no longer any political implications and when these questions had only become academic.

In his 1970 Memoirs, Zhukov correctly underscored, against Khrushchev's allegations, that the real defence policy began with Stalin's decision to industrialize in 1928.

`We could have put off a steep rise in the heavy industry for some five or seven years and given the people more consumer goods, and sooner. Our people had earned this right a thousand times. This path to development was highly attractive.'

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , p. 107.

Stalin prepared the defence of the Soviet Union by having more than 9,000 factories built between 1928 and 1941 and by making the strategic decision to set up to the East a powerful industrial base.

.

Ibid. , p. 137.

With respect to the industrialization policy, Zhukov gave tribute to the `wisdom and acumen of the Party line, finally indicated by history'.

.

Ibid. , pp. 107.

In 1921, in almost all areas of military production, they had to start from nothing. During the years of the First and Second Five Year Plans, the Party had planned that the war industries would grow faster than other branches of industry.

.

Ibid. , p. 138.

Here are the significant numbers for the first two plans.

The annual production of tanks for 1930 was 740 units. It rose to 2,271 units in 1938.

.

Ibid. , p. 139.

For the same period, annual plane construction rose from 860 to 5,500 units.

.

Ibid. , p. 140.

During the Third Five-Year Plan, between 1938 and 1940, industrial production increased 13 per cent annually, but defence industry production rose by 39 per cent.

.

La grande guerre nationale, op. cit. , p. 33.

The breathing space offered by the Germano-Soviet Pact was used by Stalin to push military production to the hilt. Zhukov testified:

`Experienced Party workers and prominent experts were assigned to large defence enterprises as CC Party organizers, to help the plants have everything needed and ensure attainment of targets. I must say that Stalin himself worked much with defence enterprises --- he was personally acquainted with dozens of directors, Party leaders, and chief engineers; he often met with them, demanding fulfilment of plans with a persistence typical of him.'

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , p. 191.

The military deliveries that took place between January 1, 1939 and June 22, 1941 are impressive.

Artillery received 92,578 units, including 29,637 canons and 52,407 mortars. New mortars, 82mm and 120mm, were introduced just before the war.

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , pp. 198--199. La grande guerre nationale, op. cit. , p. 33.

The Air Force received 17,745 fighter aircraft, including 3,719 new models. In the area of aviation:

`The measures taken between 1939 and 1941 created the conditions necessary to quickly obtain during the war quantitative and qualitative superiority'.

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , p. 201. La grande guerre nationale, op. cit. , p. 33.

The Red Army received more that 7,000 tanks. In 1940, production of the medium-size T-34 tank and heavy KV tank, superior to the German tanks, began. There were already 1,851 produced when war broke out.

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , pp. 197. La grande guerre nationale, op. cit. , p. 33.

Referring to these achievements, as if to express his disdain for Khrushchev's accusations, Zhukov made a telling self-criticism:

`Recalling what we military leaders demanded of industry in the very last months of peace, I can see that we did not always take full stock of the country's real economic possibilities.'

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , p. 192.

The actual military preparation was also pushed to the hilt by Stalin. The military confrontations in May--August 1939 with Japan and in December 1939--March 1940 with Finland were directly linked with the anti-fascist resistance. These combat experiences were carefully analyzed to strengthen the Red Army's weaknesses.

In March 1940, a Central Committee meeting examined the operations against Finland. Zhukov related:

`Discussions were sharp. The system of combat training and educating troops was strongly criticized.'

.

Ibid. , p. 180.

In May, Zhukov paid a visit to Stalin:

` ``Now that you have this combat experience,'' Stalin said, ``take upon yourself the command of the Kiev Military District and use this experience for training the troops.'' '

.

Ibid. , p. 170.

For Stalin, Kiev was of significant military importance. He expected that the main attack in the German attack would focus on Kiev.

`Stalin was convinced that in the war against the Soviet Union the Nazis would first try to seize the Ukraine and the Donets Coal Basin in order to deprive the country of its most important economic regions and lay hands on the Ukrainian grain, Donets coal and, later, Caucasian oil. During the discussion of the operational plan in the spring of 1941, Stalin said: ``Nazi Germany will not be able to wage a major lengthy war without those vital resources.'' '

.

Ibid. , p. 211.

In summer and fall 1940, Zhukov made his troops undergo intense combat preparation. He noted that he had with him capable young officers and generals. He made them learn the lessons resulting from German operations against France.

.

Ibid. , p. 173.

From December 23, 1940 to January 13, 1941, all leading officers were brought together for a large conference. At the center of debates: the future war with Germany. The experience that the fascists had accumulated with large tank corps was carefully examined. The day after the conference, a great operational and strategic exercise took place on a map. Stalin attended. Zhukov wrote:

`The strategic situation was based on probable developments in the western frontier zone in the event of a German attack on the Soviet Union.'

.

Ibid. , p. 184.

Zhukov led the German aggression, Pavlov the Soviet resistance. Zhukov noted:

`The game abounded in dramatic situations for the eastern side. They proved to be in many ways similar to what really happened after June 22, 1941, when fascist Germany attacked the Soviet Union'. Pavlov had lost the war against the Nazis. Stalin rebuked him in no uncertain terms:

`The officer commanding a district must be an expert in the art of war and he must be able to find correct solutions in any conditions, which is what you failed to do in this game.'

.

Ibid. , pp. 185--186.

Building of fortified sectors along the new Western border began in 1940. By the beginning of the war, 2,500 cement installations had been built. There were 140,000 men working on them every day.

`Stalin was also pushing us with that work', wrote Zhukov.

.

Ibid. , p. 213.

The Eighteenth Congress of the Party, February 15--20, 1941, dealt entirely with preparing industry and transportion for the war. Delegates coming from all over the Soviet Union elected a number of extra military members to the Central Committee.

.

Zhiline, op. cit. , p. 212. Zhukov, op. cit. , p. 209.

Early in March 1941, Timoshenko and Zhukov asked Stalin to call up the infantry reservists. Stalin refused, not wanting to give the Germans a pretext for provoking war. Finally, late in March, he accepted to call up 800,000 reservists, who were sent to the borders.

.

Zhukov, op. cit. , p. 196.

In April, the Chiefs of Staff informed Stalin that the troops from the Baltic, Byelorussia, Kiev and Odessa Military Regions would not be sufficient to push back the attack. Stalin decided to advance 28 border divisions, grouped into four armies, and insisted on the importance of not provoking the Nazis.

.

Ibid. , 217--218.

On May 5, 1941, in the Kremlin Great Palace, Stalin spoke to officers coming out of the military academies. His main theme: `the Germans are wrong in thinking that it's an ideal, invincible army.'

.

Ibid. , p. 225.

All these facts allow one to refute the standard slanders against Stalin:

`He prepared the army for the offensive, but not for the defensive'; `He believed in the Germano-Soviet Pact and in Hitler, his accomplice'; `He did not believe that there would be a war with the Nazis'. The purpose of these slanders is to denigrate the historic achievements of the Communists and, consequently, to increase the prestige of their opponents, the Nazis.

Zhukov, who played a crucial rôle in Khrushchev's seizure of power between 1953 and 1957, still insisted, in his Memoirs, on giving the lie to Khrushchev's Secret Report. He concluded as follows about the country's preparation for war:

`It seems to me that the country's defence was managed correctly in its basic and principal features and orientations. For many years everything possible or almost everything was done in the economic and social aspects. As to the period between 1939 and the middle of 1941, the people and Party exerted particular effort to strengthen defence.

`Our highly developed industry, the kolkhoz system, universal literacy, the unity of nations, the strength of the socialist state, the people's great patriotism, the Party leadership which was ready to unite the front and rear in one whole --- this was the splendid foundation of our immense country's defensive capacity, the underlying cause of the great victory we won in the fight against fascism. The fact that in spite of enormous difficulties and losses during the four years of the war, Soviet industry turned out a collosal amount of armaments --- almost 490 thousand guns and mortars, over 102 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, over 137 thousand military aircraft --- shows that the foundations of the economy from the military, the defence standpoint, were laid correctly and firmly.'

.

Ibid. , p. 226.

`In basic matters --- matters which in the end decide a country's fate in war and determine whether it is to be victory or defeat --- the Party and the people prepared their Motherland for defence.'

.

Ibid. , p. 227.
Hope I don't hurt your feelings but I think I'll take the opinion of guys like Zhukov over some guy on the internet

[Old Mole]

If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivable
Imperialism is a stage of Capitalism, so a "socialist state" is unable to "do" it.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Yeah actually. Finland, the Baltics, etc. wasn't imperialism

[Cork Socialist]

If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivable
That is a absoloutley ridiculous statement.....

[tbasherizer]

Guys, we gotta think about this in intellectual terms, not in terms of 'everything bad is imperialist' terms. For the Marxist Leninists, it has to be explained in terms of whether or not the Soviet Union's actions represented an exportation of class antagonism, since that is essentially Lenin's definition of the phenomena. Trotskyists and left coms might say that it was the state-capitalist version of imperialism, but Stalinists might apply some kind of Soviet exceptionalism to it.

I haven't made an opinion yet, but I'm mulling it over a bitter ale in the four candles pub in Oxford if you want to discuss it in person.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

That is a absoloutley ridiculous statement.....
Why? what are ya, a nationalist or something?

[Cork Socialist]

Why? what are ya, a nationalist or something?

So everything a soclialist does is forgiveable ??
Do you know how ridiculous that is, I suppose mass murder is fine because Socialists did it. That makes everything fine.

You cannot seriously believe that everything Socialists do is perfectly fine........

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, the Nixon defence.

"What I'm saying is, if the President does it, it isn't a crime."

Obviously, substitute 'Comrade First Secretary' for 'President' as you see fit.

[Cork Socialist]

Ah, the Nixon defence.

"What I'm saying is, if the President does it, it isn't a crime."

Obviously, substitute 'Comrade First Secretary' for 'President' as you see fit.
Definitly, its clearly fine to support it.....socialists did it.....
Stupid comment made from the poster that "its fine if socialists do it" kind of shit.

[Arlekino]

We can think of intellectualism but reality peasants of majority wished red army in Baltic States but yes somebody told it was right wing country government executed communist and most of greeted Nazis.
As real life peasants don't care who is imperialist who is not or Nazis, as long give them something better, or promise something they would go on that side. Well my mother told me it was good man Stalin because her family gained plot of land, my fathers side of course they lost land and have to gave up to collectivisation.

[Sir Comradical]

Finland was a pro-Nazi quasi-fascist state. The USSR only invaded after Finland straight-up refused to even lease the USSR certain ports that they needed to defend Leningrad

Funny enough, when Stalin was Commissar of Nationalities, he helped grant Finland its independence from Soviet Russia. Big mistake.

[Sir Comradical]

Except the USSR could have went to war with the Nazis in 1940 when they were occupied in the West, and would've won, though probably that would require Stalin and his not butchering the advanced officer corps of the Soviet army. Except the USSR sold goods and parts and raw materials to the Nazis enabling their war build-up and stock accumulation (which was used against the USSR in short order).

If the USSR had attacked Nazi Germany first, you'd probably denounce them as imperialists for waging an aggressive war. Soviet policy was clear, they were not going to embroil themselves in the next inter-imperialist war unless the war was imposed on them which is what happened anyway. From the Soviet point of view, what they feared was for a repeat of the Russian Civil War only this time with Britain, France, Germany and the other fascist states on the same side invading the USSR. So after trying for years to form an anti-fascist alliance they signed a non-aggression pact with the Germans to outmaneuver Poland and to divide the West. Obviously there was trade between the USSR and Germany because no economy, especially one emerging out of backwardness like the Soviet economy could develop under autarky.


Nothing the USSR did in 1938-1941 resembles anything like the shrewd self-reliance and defense that Stalinists delude, but straight geopolitical and strategic blunder. Stalin remained just as much of a military imbecile as when he helped fuck up the Polish War.

How so? (I'm trying to learn here).

[Sir Comradical]

Following this line of thought, any act of Imperialism can be justified so long as it stops Fascist and Capitalist imperialism (WW2, Soviet Afghanistan involvement)

We are against Imperialism, regardless of whatever form it takes.

There was nothing imperialist about the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan.

[Sir Comradical]

The more "imperialist" of the actions if anything was the transfer of capital goods such as factories and resources as war-reparations from the post-war states such as DDR, early Romania and a like to the Soviet Union which continued till the mid-late 50's, which in cases included setting up local enterprises specifically for the purpose extracting and transferring.

You have GOT to be kidding me. When the Axis powers invaded the USSR, they destroyed 15 large cities, 1700 towns, 70000 villages, 6 million buildings, 31000 industrial enterprises, 1100 coal mines and 3000 oil wells. But you've got the nerve to say that it's "imperialism" for the USSR to seize capital goods from the countries that invaded them and use them to rebuild their demolished nation? Give me a break.

If the Soviet Union was "imperialist", then it was the only imperialist nation IN HISTORY with colonies that had the same or even slightly better living standards. Quite a peculiar imperialism indeed.

[Impulse97]

Finland was a pro-Nazi quasi-fascist state. The USSR only invaded after Finland straight-up refused to even lease the USSR certain ports that they needed to defend Leningrad

They only allied with Germany to fend of Soviet aggression. They where being bombed to shit because they exercised their right to not hand over territory to another nation. Stalin then did what every bully does and took what he wanted after he was told he couldn't have it.

Don't even try to justify it with the defense of St. Petersburg. Stalin invaded Finland in 1939! Just two months after Germany sacked Poland with Stalin's help no less. Not to mention that Hitler wouldn't even attack Stalin until a year after the winter war ended!


If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivable

Bullshit. It's Social-Imperialist and nothing else. We need to set the standard for the world, not go around fucking it up.


Imperialism is a stage of Capitalism, so a "socialist state" is unable to "do" it.

Problem is, is that the SU wasn't socialist by 1939. It was a deformed workers state with a personality cult.


If the Soviet Union was "imperialist", then it was the only imperialist nation IN HISTORY with colonies that had the same or even slightly better living standards. Quite a peculiar imperialism indeed.

Imperialism isn't about living standards. It's the actions of the state and how the affect other people. Hence, reguardless of who does it, if a state takes from or uses for gain, the people, resources or land of another nation it's imperialism. Stalin wanted the ports so he used force to take them and the land needed to support them. Social-imperialism in it's finest.

[Magón]

If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivable

Like for fucking real?

[Sir Comradical]

Imperialism isn't about living standards. It's the actions of the state and how the affect other people. Hence, reguardless of who does it, if a state takes from or uses for gain, the people, resources or land of another nation it's imperialism. Stalin wanted the ports so he used force to take them and the land needed to support them. Social-imperialism in it's finest.

But aren't you a Hoxhaist? lol.

[Impulse97]

But aren't you a Hoxhaist? lol.

Yea, I am, but I know Social-Imperialism when I see it.

Hoxha effed up when he supported most of Stalin's actions. I just don't see his actions as justifying the means. He did a damn lot of good, but it was largely negated by the bad.

I mainly agree with his (Hoxha) anti-revisionist ideas. Not so much those on Stalin. His claims that Stalin was ML are false. At least as far as late Stalin is concerned. Ironically, one thing he did call ole Joey out on was is Personality cult, which he later developed around himself in his later years. He's human prone to mistakes and he made his fair share. Does this negate his Anti-rev. ideas? No, but it does mean we don't have to support those which are wrong.

[Paul Cockshott]

That is a absoloutley ridiculous statement.....
Why?

[ZeroNowhere]

If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivableI suppose that capitalism is also alright if you are a socialist state.

[UnknownPerson]

From my understanding, the war against Finland was completely aggressive and unnecessary. Finland ceded 11% of its territory and 30% of it's economic assets. Sounds pretty imperialist.
Stalin wanted to move the borders further in case of a Nazi attack, to get more time on preparation, as it was thought that Finland would surrender.

[Kiev Communard]

Considering the fact that for Marxists-Leninists the idea of "socialist state" actually boils down to the notion of the centralized capitalist corporation that controls the totality of national economy, with wage labour being generalized, rather than abolished, it is no wonder they may support "imperialism" if done by the said "socialist state". Nevertheless, I have to come out in defense of Stalin regarding the accusation of "imperialism", because what he was doing in the case of Finland and other countries of the region was not "imperialism" as capital exports, it was merely another part of his fabled "socialist primitive accumulation", i.e. the accumulation of capital through external plunder/expropriation, rather than exporting excess capital.

[manic expression]

Considering the fact that for Marxists-Leninists the idea of "socialist state" actually boils down to the notion of the centralized capitalist corporation that controls the totality of national economy, with wage labour being generalized, rather than abolished,
Oh, so I guess Stalin would have owned stock in this corporation. If that's indeed the case, then it should be pretty easy to find evidence of his shares, the stockbrokers he employed, the profits he personally made and so on and so forth.

[Kiev Communard]

Oh, so I guess Stalin would have owned stock in this corporation. If that's indeed the case, then it should be pretty easy to find evidence of his shares, the stockbrokers he employed, the profits he personally made and so on and so forth.

There is a big difference between formal and real ownership. Besides, the capital flows in the USSR were to a certain extent controlled by Politbureau and Stalin himself, so it might be said that the Gosplan functionaries who advised them on the most profitable investment of capital were these "stockbrokers". In addition, the level of living of highest Soviet bureaucrats was directly supported by state subsidies, which was the form in which surplus value in the USSR existed. Finally, there is a big difference between the essential substance of capital existence and its specific phenomenal forms, so your allegation that all forms of capitalism should necessarily resemble the Western ones is rather superficial. For instance, was South Korea under Park Chung-hee or Shah's Iran socialist? By your logic, they were, because the state controlled far greater share of total capital and exerted far stronger control over individual private entrepreneurs than it is the case in apparently "socialist" Dengist China now. Moreover, South Korea had much more developed 5-year development plans than modern "People's" China, so I see no reason why you should not embrace glorious comrade Park Chung-hee's Juchesong ideas or Shah Pahlavi's statist "White Revolution" (the latter was much harsher to individual capitalists than Leninist NEP, by the way).

[manic expression]

There is a big difference between formal and real ownership.
Kind of like the big difference between capitalist and not capitalist.


Besides, the capital flows in the USSR were to a certain extent controlled by Politbureau and Stalin himself, so it might be said that the Gosplan functionaries who advised them on the most profitable investment of capital were these "stockbrokers".Don't give me moral comparisons. The whole point of employing a stockbroker is to make personal profit out of one's own investments in the context of a competitive market. Was Stalin doing that?


In addition, the level of living of highest Soviet bureaucrats was directly supported by state subsidies, which was the form in which surplus value in the USSR existed.Who wasn't directly supported by "state subsidies"? I guess the army veteran being treated in the state hospital is a stockbroker/CEO/owner/whatever, too. I guess the Soviet Union was populated almost exclusively by corporation-owning capitalists.


Finally, there is a big difference between the essential substance of capital existence and its specific phenomenal forms, so your allegation that all forms of capitalism should necessarily resemble the Western ones is rather superficial. For instance, was South Korea under Park Chung-hee or Shah's Iran socialist? By your logic, they were, because the state controlled far greater share of total capital and exerted far stronger control over individual private entrepreneurs than it is the case in apparently "socialist" Dengist China now.Let's get one thing straight: are you comparing Park's South Korea or the Shah's Iran to the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership?


Moreover, South Korea had much more developed 5-year development plans than modern "People's" China, so I see no reason why you should not embrace glorious comrade Park Chung-hee's Juchesong ideas or Shah Pahlavi's statist "White Revolution" (the latter was much harsher to individual capitalists than Leninist NEP, by the way).I knew you were going to change the subject. Anyway, this is another case of historical obtuseness. Both those you pointed out were backed by the US in the understanding that their policies would be friendly to US business interests. Being harsh to Iranian capitalists in order to suppress the entirety of the country for imperialist plunder isn't exactly what you were talking about before.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Like for fucking real?

"the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination" - Lenin

[Marxach-Léinínach]

They only allied with Germany to fend of Soviet aggression. They where being bombed to shit because they exercised their right to not hand over territory to another nation. Stalin then did what every bully does and took what he wanted after he was told he couldn't have it.
Where are you getting your info, western cold war history books? So it was just allying with Germany to defend itself? Nothing to do with the fact it'd been an anti-Soviet White Army dictatorship since the Russian Civil War?

Don't even try to justify it with the defense of St. Petersburg. Stalin invaded Finland in 1939! Just two months after Germany sacked Poland with Stalin's help no less. Not to mention that Hitler wouldn't even attack Stalin until a year after the winter war ended!
Yes, Stalin should've been able to perfectly predict the future.

Problem is, is that the SU wasn't socialist by 1939. It was a deformed workers state with a personality cult.
You're seriously a Hoxhaist? One of the fundamental parts of Hoxhaism is the USSR under Stalin was socialist

[Dimmu]

Of course it was imperialist.. I mean did everyone just suddenly forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where Soviets agreed to "share" the Europe with nazis? How was that not imperialistic?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Of course it was imperialist.. I mean did everyone just suddenly forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where Soviets agreed to "share" the Europe with nazis? How was that not imperialistic?

All Molotov-Ribbentropp did was give the USSR better defense capabilities and give Western Europe and Poland some poetic justice

[Dimmu]

All Molotov-Ribbentropp did was give the USSR better defense capabilities and give Western Europe and Poland some poetic justice

No, it did not.. Finland still easily took back its "former" lands and went deeper into SU and could have easily blockaded Leningrad, while Germans blitzkrieged deep into Russia proper.. So no, that argument is false.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

And it would've been even easier for them with the pre-1939 borders

[Dimmu]

And it would've been even easier for them with the pre-1939 borders

I am not sure about that.. German advance through Poland and Finnish advance through captured Karelia was so rapid that i am not sure that these "buffer zones" provided any help at all...

[Sir Comradical]

Of course it was imperialist.. I mean did everyone just suddenly forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact where Soviets agreed to "share" the Europe with nazis? How was that not imperialistic?

The areas of Poland annexed by the USSR were a part of Ukraine and Belarus anyway. They were ceded to Poland at the Treaty of Riga in 1921 as a concession after the Russian Civil War. In any case the Germans took Poland in 5 days and Soviet troops only marched in once the pathetic Polish government and its troops had been thoroughly routed.

Would you prefer the Germans took all of Poland?

[Dimmu]

The areas of Poland annexed by the USSR were a part of Ukraine and Belarus anyway. They were ceded to Poland at the Treaty of Riga in 1921 as a concession after the Russian Civil War. In any case the Germans took Poland in 5 days and Soviet troops only marched in once the pathetic Polish government and its troops had been thoroughly routed.

Would you prefer the Germans took all of Poland?


Not an excuse to cooperate with nazis.. Also Poland was not the only thing that was "shared" with the Nazi Germany..

I do not hate Soviet Union, but i cannot stand communists or socialists who defend everything that SU have ever done especially such blatant case of imperialism such as M&R pact..

[Cork Socialist]

Why?

DO you really think everything is ok if its socialists doing it ??? Definitely not.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Not an excuse to cooperate with nazis.. Also Poland was not the only thing that was "shared" with the Nazi Germany..
They didn't co-operate though, the Red Army didn't even go into Poland until 2 weeks after the German invasion, by which time the Polish state had for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. They then simply took back what Poland had taken from them

[Triple A]

Who would think people would answer shallow things like:
"It's not fascism when we do it"

[Dimmu]

They didn't co-operate though, the Red Army didn't even go into Poland until 2 weeks after the German invasion, by which time the Polish state had for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. They then simply took back what Poland had taken from them


They still agreed to "share" the Europe and it is just as imperlistic as European nations who decided to share the New World between each other.

[manic expression]

They still agreed to "share" the Europe and it is just as imperlistic as European nations who decided to share the New World between each other.
No no no hold on one second. Look, I'm not 100% behind Molotov-Ribbentrop, even though I understand and respect the point of view that supports it and I get why it was done (Sir Comradical and Marxach-Léinínach have explained this very well). That being said, it was no-thing like that. Nothing. Unless you think ships full of gold were sailing from eastern Poland to Moscow, unless you think Stalin donned a crown and asked the pope where to "split Poland" (which, as has been said, wasn't really a split, the Soviet Union simply occupied the then-stateless region after the collapse of the Polish government), unless you think that Poles were used extensively as slaves until the intervention of the Catholic Church, unless you think African slaves were imported in chains to pick up production, unless you think Poles were subjected to a veritable genocide, unless you think the Soviets converted people to Christianity by the sword, unless you think most Poles now speak Russian....

I could go on. There's no comparison.

[Kiev Communard]

Kind of like the big difference between capitalist and not capitalist.

OK, then Marx and even Soviet political economy professors who followed the theory I presented were all ignoramuses, I support. In addition, it follows from your assertion that CEOs of the corporations who do not hold direct portfolio therein are poor exploited proletarians. Moreover, as there usually was no full-scale juridical private property in pre-capitalist class societies, then it follows that they were classless, as the ruling class was supposed to be mere stewards of the "divine" property" (just as Soviet bureaucracy was supposed to be stewards of "people's" property). Congratulations, manic expression, you have just refuted Marx and historical materialism! Really, who gives a damn about real material conditions, if the divine Constitution says it is people's property and the state of the whole people:rolleyes:...


Don't give me moral comparisons. The whole point of employing a stockbroker is to make personal profit out of one's own investments in the context of a competitive market. Was Stalin doing that?

There was a competition for capital inflows between Soviet enterprises and branches of industry, which represented a peculiar kind of capital market.


Who wasn't directly supported by "state subsidies"? I guess the army veteran being treated in the state hospital is a stockbroker/CEO/owner/whatever, too. I guess the Soviet Union was populated almost exclusively by corporation-owning capitalists.

Don't be ridiculous. Remember, I live in the former USSR republic, and my relatives knew full well the difference between the standards of living of the rulers and the ruled. I suppose you may have told to my grandmother who toiled in kolkhoz basically for nothing that she was that kolkhoz's real owner:lol:.


Let's get one thing straight: are you comparing Park's South Korea or the Shah's Iran to the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership?

I knew you were going to change the subject. Anyway, this is another case of historical obtuseness. Both those you pointed out were backed by the US in the understanding that their policies would be friendly to US business interests. Being harsh to Iranian capitalists in order to suppress the entirety of the country for imperialist plunder isn't exactly what you were talking about before.

For starters, it is of no consequences from the materialist point of view what foreign policy measures this or another state pursues and whom it allies with in international relations. What matters is its internal socioeconomic order. Therefore I could easily compare Stalin's USSR with Park's South Korea, as both of them were developmentalist capitalist states that pursued the "catch-up" strategy through extensive industrialisation. Their respective foreign policy connections are of no importance at this level of analysis.

[Dimmu]

No no no hold on one second. Look, I'm not 100% behind Molotov-Ribbentrop, even though I understand and respect the point of view that supports it and I get why it was done (Sir Comradical and Marxach-Léinínach have explained this very well). That being said, it was no-thing like that. Nothing. Unless you think ships full of gold were sailing from eastern Poland to Moscow, unless you think Stalin donned a crown and asked the pope where to "split Poland" (which, as has been said, wasn't really a split, the Soviet Union simply occupied the then-stateless region after the collapse of the Polish government), unless you think that Poles were used extensively as slaves until the intervention of the Catholic Church, unless you think African slaves were imported in chains to pick up production, unless you think Poles were subjected to a veritable genocide, unless you think the Soviets converted people to Christianity by the sword, unless you think most Poles now speak Russian....

I could go on. There's no comparison.


Why only take Poland as an example? Baltic states and Finland were also countries who were part of the deal, Bessarabia too..


Also the argument that "these countries were part of the Russian Empire" is also faulthy since many of these lands were conquered by imperialistic Russian czars.

[Fawkes]

"the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination" - Lenin

"The interests of the party and the state are higher than the interests of the right of workers to autonomy and self-determination" - Lenin

Apparently a lot of things are excusable when done by socialists. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-red-army-t155381/index.html?highlight=red+army+rape)

[manic expression]

Why only take Poland as an example? Baltic states and Finland were also countries who were part of the deal, Bessarabia too..
OK, then you can be completely wrong about Poland and the Baltic states and Finland and Bessarabia. Fine with me.


Also the argument that "these countries were part of the Russian Empire" is also faulthy since many of these lands were conquered by imperialistic Russian czars.
I didn't use that argument. If the USSR went by that, then all of Finland, much of present-day Poland and Alaska would've been claimed. They weren't.

[Dimmu]

OK, then you can be completely wrong about Poland and the Baltic states and Finland and Bessarabia. Fine with me.


So what do you think that this pact was if not imperialistic?

I didn't use that argument. If the USSR went by that, then all of Finland, much of present-day Poland and Alaska would've been claimed. They weren't.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, not you, but other members in this thread used that argument.

[manic expression]

So what do you think that this pact was if not imperialistic?
Well, it's hard to judge because it was done in difficult circumstances. The Soviet Union appealed to the "powers" of western Europe for an anti-Nazi pact, and they mocked them for it. They were left out to dry, so to speak, and that's when the USSR looked to a non-aggression pact. It did give the USSR buffer zones for anti-Nazi defense (which arguably proved vital in 1941...even 50 fewer miles for the Wehrmacht to travel and the war could have gone differently), protected many populations from the massacres of the fascists (especially the Jews of Poland and the Baltic...in many cases, in Lithuania for instance, it was the first time in history that Jews were accorded equal rights and could take part in public life, which they did with enthusiasm) and also extended the abolition of capitalism to yet more workers (at least IMO).

In terms of strategy, it was a success, I think. However, there is the ethical question to consider. Are we to negotiate with our worst enemies? Is violating that principle worth the lives saved by the agreement? Was there a better way? These are quandaries I do not deign to answer absolutely, and so I must say that while I can't stand behind Molotov-Ribbentrop 100%, I think it was at the very least an understandable decision, even if I do have some reservations.


Sorry, not you, but other members in this thread used that argument.
OK, no worries...my fault for assuming.

[Jose Gracchus]

Twenty million dead of your own citizenry is an interesting barometer of success.

And no, 50 more miles wouldn't have made much difference (much less, "the war would've gone totally differently"); the USSR was prepared to fight beyond Moscow.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Twenty million dead of your own citizenry is an interesting barometer of success.
Yeah it's the USSR's fault it had a genocidal war waged against it :rolleyes:

And no, 50 more miles wouldn't have made much difference (much less, "the war would've gone totally differently"); the USSR was prepared to fight beyond Moscow.
You know if the Germans had made it to Moscow the Japanese would've invaded as well from the east for instance?

[PhoenixAsh]

"the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination" - Lenin

"the interests of capital and economic progress are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination" - any capitalist imperialist

And one to justify economic slavery that is being brought upon nations world wide and more recently being implemented in Greece.

Any more questionable quotes for us?

Because the annex of Finland had little or nothing to do with freeing the working class there rather it wanted to make it economically and politically subservient to the USSR.

[freya4]

I think that the Brezhnev Doctrine was petty excuse for invading and exerting influence on other countries. It was similar to the domino theory in that any threat of a possibly hostile group taking power gave them the right to intervene in other's affairs. The Soviet Union, I think, certainly viewed itself as the leader of the socialist world, similar to how the US viewed itself, and still does, as the leader of the Western capitalist world. That being said, although some Soviet actions are imperialistic, I wouldn't go so far to call it an imperialist country, at least not before Khrushchev.

[Sir Comradical]

Not an excuse to cooperate with nazis.. Also Poland was not the only thing that was "shared" with the Nazi Germany..

I do not hate Soviet Union, but i cannot stand communists or socialists who defend everything that SU have ever done especially such blatant case of imperialism such as M&R pact..

A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. It's no more an alliance than if the US signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR. In 1934 Poland had signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis at a time when Britain was collaborating with the fascists. In 1935 the USSR began pushing for an anti-fascist pact but was flatly rejected. Clearly from the Soviet point of view Western Europe was against them. M-R effectively outmaneuvred Poland and divided the west. It was the only logical choice.

The Baltic countries annexed by the USSR ended up with their industries nationalised which gave them popular support from workers (Deutscher's Stalin).

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah it's the USSR's fault it had a genocidal war waged against it :rolleyes:

No, but it was Stalin et al's fault it went so badly.


You know if the Germans had made it to Moscow the Japanese would've invaded as well from the east for instance?

They already tried in 1939; Zhukov kicked their ass and they quickly signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR.

[Paul Cockshott]

Considering the fact that for Marxists-Leninists the idea of "socialist state" actually boils down to the notion of the centralized capitalist corporation that controls the totality of national economy, with wage labour being generalized, rather than abolished, it is no wonder they may support "imperialism" if done by the said "socialist state". Nevertheless, I have to come out in defense of Stalin regarding the accusation of "imperialism", because what he was doing in the case of Finland and other countries of the region was not "imperialism" as capital exports, it was merely another part of his fabled "socialist primitive accumulation", i.e. the accumulation of capital through external plunder/expropriation, rather than exporting excess capital.
It would be worth you while looking at the link that was posted earlier
http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/CL-FINLANDWAR90.html
which gives a fairly detailed account of the negotiations that went on between Finland and the USSR. According to that account, the soviet demands were very modest and purely defensive -- access to one or two small Islands to protect the entrance to Leningrad harbour and in return for which the USSR was willing too cede to Finland thousands of sq kilometers elsewhere.

[Omsk]

No, but it was Stalin et al's fault it went so badly.

Care to explain your claim?

And it is widely known that the Soviet demands were not unreasonable (they did basically win)

[Yazman]

Just popping in here to commend the posters in this thread for keeping discussion productive and worthwhile, particularly in such a long thread with a relatively controversial topic.

Keep it up and don't let us down :cool:

[Paul Cockshott]

DO you really think everything is ok if its socialists doing it ??? Definitely not.
No I dont think that, but your oppostion to it comes from thinking that the rights of nations to self determination is a higher aim than socialism. This position could historically has drawn on the Bolshevik/Stalinist policy of promoting the right of nations to self determination set out in Stalin's On the National Question made, in my view, far to many concessions to nationalism. This was done both within the USSR and on an even worse level after 1948 when new socialist states were not united into a multinational socialist federation.
From a socialist standpoint, multi-national multi-ethnic states are preferable to nation states since the process of drawing up such nation states gives rise to all sorts of national minorities abandoned on the wrong side of national frontiers. We have only to look at the Balkan wars of the 90s to see the consequences of this.
The aim of socialists in Europe should, from the 1870s on have been a United States of Europe as espoused by Victor Hugo. With the Establishment of the USSR the aim should have been a United States of Eurasia.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

They already tried in 1939; Zhukov kicked their ass and they quickly signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR.

Which is why they didn't immediately invade with the Nazis and instead gave them a bunch of conditions the main one of which was that Moscow fall

[Dimmu]

A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. It's no more an alliance than if the US signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR. In 1934 Poland had signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis at a time when Britain was collaborating with the fascists. In 1935 the USSR began pushing for an anti-fascist pact but was flatly rejected. Clearly from the Soviet point of view Western Europe was against them. M-R effectively outmaneuvred Poland and divided the west. It was the only logical choice.

The Baltic countries annexed by the USSR ended up with their industries nationalised which gave them popular support from workers (Deutscher's Stalin).

Only that M&R pact was not only a simple non-aggression pact.. Countries dont ussualy divide the Europe in "spheres of influence" when they sign such pacts.

[Kiev Communard]

It would be worth you while looking at the link that was posted earlier
http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/CL-FINLANDWAR90.html
which gives a fairly detailed account of the negotiations that went on between Finland and the USSR. According to that account, the soviet demands were very modest and purely defensive -- access to one or two small Islands to protect the entrance to Leningrad harbour and in return for which the USSR was willing too cede to Finland thousands of sq kilometers elsewhere.

Well, actually I referred more to the cases of Baltic States, Poland and Romania, than that of Finland. In addition, the formation of pro-Soviet government, which was to replace an existing one (even if the latter was basically a bunch of fascist lackeys, it would be understandable to every class-struggle socialist that it should be workers of Finland who should have the right to choose their future form of administration, rather than being "presented" with an obscure group of Komintern functionaries as "their" government), shows that the Soviet aims in Winter War were far from purely defensive. By the way, it is interesting to note that it Winter War when the Stalinist agitprop began using Great Russian chauvinist rhetoric openly for the first time, so that the war was from "fraternal help to Finnish workers" as it was presented.

[Paul Cockshott]

did you look at the link I posted on the negotiations?

[Kiev Communard]

did you look at the link I posted on the negotiations?

Believe me, I have a lot of background knowledge about Soviet foreign policy in the 1930s to 1940s, and I think that this article is rather superficial, as it still does not address the question of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's provision for Soviet control over Finland, which was clearly settled before any possible Finnish provocation in October 1939:


Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/molotovpact.html

[Sir Comradical]

Only that M&R pact was not only a simple non-aggression pact.. Countries dont ussualy divide the Europe in "spheres of influence" when they sign such pacts.

Marching into Poland after it's regime & army had been defeated isn't imperialism. Especially when these are areas that were a part of Soviet Russia anyway, areas that were ceded to Poland under the Treaty of Riga. Would you rather live in the part of Poland annexed by the USSR or the part annexed by Hitler? The choice is obvious. In the context of the genocidal war to follow, the Baltics' lost sovereignty doesn't make me lose sleep at night.

[Le Socialiste]

If it's a socialist state doing it it's forgivable

Imperialism doesn't know or acknowledge ideology, it is simply a product of the state. Explain to me how a socialist state's imperialist actions differs from those of a capitalist or fascist one. Because ultimately, we find similar reasonings that reinforce old geopolitical realities - regardless of the ideological excuses that back them up. Stalin wasn't acting out of interest for Finland, the Baltic states, or Eastern Europe, he was going through the motions of what were considered the necessary actions for the preservation of the Russian state. Whether he was a communist, a capitalist, a fascist, or a monarchist doesn't matter; that is, if we take geopolitics as the driving force behind Stalin's choices, expanding Russian borders was vital to ensuring the short-term (and eventually the long-term) security/stability of the nation. However, that doesn't negate the fact that these choices were imperialist by their very nature, nor does it excuse Soviet strategy at the time. Because ultimately, Stalin and the Soviet bourgeoisie weren't concerned with the emancipation or wellbeing of the European proletariat (Spain proved that quite well, I think), but were acting out of their own self-interest and what they recognized as necessary to buffer Russian territory from potential attack. There is nothing remotely socialistic about these actions and reasonings; no, they were the result of a centuries-old mentality that demanded the expansion of Russian borders to ward off or prolong possible aggression. Communist/socialist revolution(s) must cease to recognize these arbitrary "realities" in favor of a complete break with said "reality". If we continue to see nations, borders, and states, we remain divided by self-interest and boundaries - the likes of which prevent further revolutionary action rather than spur it on.

The socialist state is still a state system that recreates old structures of inequality and injustice, maintaining the division of the classes and the position of a privileged few rather than eliminating them immediately. It is a holdover of bourgeois governmental theory and practice, and deserves dismantlement - not maintenance. It doesn't matter whether the state claims its actions to be "revolutionary" or not; if it takes on the mantle of imperialism, there are no excuses.