USSR 2.0, good or bad?

[Nikolay]

If this "Eurasian Union" is somehow a recreation of the USSR, would you support it (assuming it takes a more socialist path)? Or do you think it's bound to failure if Putin leads it?

I don't know what Putin's ideology is, but assuming he's left-leaning I'd support the idea, as long as he respects the peoples' voices, and adheres to socialist principles, or at least social democratic principles (which wouldn't be my most favoured option >.>).

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Its never going to be socialist, just a new incarnation of Russia's imperialism.

[Astarte]

Putin is essentially a centrist bourgeois Bonapartist... any "USSR 2.0" would just mean a new Russian nationalist bloc, you know, like the good old days of the Tsars... :rolleyes: I don't think it would be anything progressive.

[Per Levy]

If this "Eurasian Union" is somehow a recreation of the USSR, would you support it (assuming it takes a more socialist path)? Or do you think it's bound to failure if Putin leads it?

]I don't know what Putin's ideology is, but assuming he's left-leaning I'd support the idea, as long as he respects the peoples' voices, and adheres to socialist principles, or at least social democratic principles (which wouldn't be my most favoured option >.>).

about that, putin is a conservative and a capitalist. he is not left leaning, therefore the "eurasioan union" is only meant as some kind of new bloc against the west or at least strenghtening russias position and influence.

so no, i wont support it.

[Susurrus]

It would be closer to Mussolini than the USSR.

[The Jay]

I agree with the above posters, it's not a good thing if it goes through.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Making a bloc that makes up the same territory as the fSU doesnt make it socialist. The Russian Empire was the same size roughly and it wasnt socialist. And the government taking a more socialist direction wont make it a union of soviet socialist republics.

Its like saying venezuela is socialist right now which in fact it is not. The PSUV is moving towards socialism but socialism in Venezuela, or anywhere else, will not come about through the ballot. At some point, the bourgeois state must be replaced with a proletarian one. I'm not knocking on the PSUV at all either, that is just a fact and for the most part, I'm sure they are aware of that.

[socialistjustin]

This is nothing more than global politics and it will have nothing to do with socialism. I haven't been keeping up with the story, but I would guess that this is an attempt to create a EU.

[rundontwalk]

It's fundamentally a good idea, even if Putin is throwing it together for less than noble motives.

I think economic intergration could help ease the ethnic tensions in the former Soviet 'Stans - and should Russia ever become a functioning democracy it would also provide an extremely effective way to bring about the end of dictatorships there.

(But as it is Russia will allow the murderous thugs in charge to run their little states as they please, much like he allows the President of Chechyna to rape and pillage at will.)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Economic integration between capitalist states is expected. But, economic integration also means the loss of economic sovereignty of weaker nations, economically. A progressive step for underdeveloped or semi-colonized nations, even if they are capitalist, would be to assert their economic sovereignty and have a state monopoly on trade. aka protectionism.


Russian capitalists will profit greatly from this. It would probably give rise to a reinvigorated Russian imperialism.

[DaringMehring]

To think that socialism could come about, because of some maneuvers by the heads of bourgeois governments, and not by a revolution by the exploited classes, is an error in Marxism 101.

You should study the basics a lot more.

[thefinalmarch]

If this "Eurasian Union" is somehow a recreation of the USSR,
It won't be. The USSR was formed amidst unique conditions which simply do not exist today.


would you support it (assuming it takes a more socialist path)?
Socialism is not something to be implemented by some tiny party clique, or by any bourgeois politician. What would make a country "more socialist" than any "ordinary" capitalist country? Socialism/communism is defined by workers' ownership of the means of production, and the absence of capital, wage-labour and value. Capitalism is most simply defined as generalised commodity production. Pick one -- there are no "degrees" of socialism.


assuming he's left-leaning
lol no. putin is right-wing as fuck.

[Nikolay]

To think that socialism could come about, because of some maneuvers by the heads of bourgeois governments, and not by a revolution by the exploited classes, is an error in Marxism 101.

You should study the basics a lot more.

Yeah, I'm still in the learning process. So I apologize for my noobness. But I do know that there needs to be a revolution, and not just a switch to capitalism to socialism. I should have been more clear in my post.

[DeBon]

I don't know what Putin's ideology is.....as long as he respects the peoples' voices, and adheres to socialist principles, or at least social democratic principles....

It's funny because you think Putin isn't war hungry imperialist who cares for his people.

[Rafiq]

The USSR was the result of the failure of the revolution to spread and put the proletarian in a position of class dictatorship globally. I don't know any sensible person who would want to recreate that.

[Bronte]

I think we shouldn't rely on European integrationism to provide a Marxist State. The first Communist blocs may be built out of the Occupy Movement (if their propaganda against the Capitalists is successful).

Communism can come first to North America, where people can understand the plight of the Worker, due to the socioeconomic crisis that is now enveloping the developed parts of America.

Ironic that the same Capitalist system that gave us Laymann Brothers is now encouraging rioting by the same Americans who were kept safe by their materialist greed.

[Nikolay]

It's funny because you think Putin isn't war hungry imperialist who cares for his people.

To be honest I don't like the man at all..

[Bronte]

To be honest I don't like the man at all..

Putin was a Stalinist thug. I personally cannot wait to open a Corona when he dies.

It will be a happy day for the Working Classes who have been pushed around by Putin's crank KGB Government since the second he assumed Office.

[tir1944]

No it won't be a particulary happy day for the Russian working class because some other thug would immediately take his place.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Putin's conservatism is mainly social. If we are to believe what is being spouted by United Russia and the All-Russia People's Front, the flat-tax regime is heading out the door.


It's fundamentally a good idea, even if Putin is throwing it together for less than noble motives.

I think economic intergration could help ease the ethnic tensions in the former Soviet 'Stans - and should Russia ever become a functioning democracy it would also provide an extremely effective way to bring about the end of dictatorships there.

(But as it is Russia will allow the murderous thugs in charge to run their little states as they please, much like he allows the President of Chechyna to rape and pillage at will.)

Indeed.


A progressive step for underdeveloped or semi-colonized nations, even if they are capitalist, would be to assert their economic sovereignty and have a state monopoly on trade. aka protectionism.

State monopoly on foreign trade /= protectionism. Historically, the latter has been associated with tariffs, quotas, and domestic subsidies.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Putin? Left leaning?

Whatchu been smoking?
http://itsthedoc.net/stuff/what-are-you-smoking.gif

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://rt.com/politics/eurasian-union-members-lukashenko-859/



The President of Belarus and current chairman of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Alexander Lukashenko, says membership in a future Eurasian Union will also mean membership of the CSTO.

Lukashenko told the parliamentary assembly of the military-political bloc on Thursday: “All republics that are now members of the EurAsEC without exception will become members of the CSTO. Even Uzbekistan, which presently takes a special stand, will eventually understand that without the CSTO it will be hard for them to retain their independence.” However, the politician stressed that the bloc’s member states will not intervene in Uzbekistan’s internal politics or try to influence any decision on taking part in the interstate unions.

At the same time, Lukashenko criticized the Uzbeki authorities for not taking action to guarantee their return to the CSTO and, in a somewhat cryptic aside, accused them of playing what he called a triple game.

The CSTO is a military-political bloc recognized by the UN, comprising Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia and Uzbekistan. In recent years, Uzbekistan has opposed many CSTO initiatives, especially the creation of a rapid-response force that was criticized by Russia and other members of the bloc.

The Russian news agency Interfax on Thursday quoted a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry as saying that though Uzbekistan's co-operation within the CSTO has not been active enough, Moscow does not want Tashkent to quit the bloc. "Any sovereign state has a right to join our organization and to make a decision to leave it. But it would be wrong to say that we demand this. This is not true," the source said.

"Indeed, it is necessary to admit that, regrettably, Uzbekistan is not participating in many areas of multilateral co-operation, including army building, co-operation in countering threats coming from Afghanistan, the Collective Operational Reaction Force and peacekeeping. Its involvement in military-technological co-operation is limited," the source said.

[Le Socialiste]

If this "Eurasian Union" is somehow a recreation of the USSR, would you support it (assuming it takes a more socialist path)? Or do you think it's bound to failure if Putin leads it?

I don't know what Putin's ideology is, but assuming he's left-leaning I'd support the idea, as long as he respects the peoples' voices, and adheres to socialist principles, or at least social democratic principles (which wouldn't be my most favoured option >.>).

The "Eurasain Union" is more or less a reflection of the aims and needs of the Russian ruling-class. Keep in mind most members of any future "union" won't be doing so independently, but rather due to financial and political pressure from Moscow. Another thing to keep in mind is that the very idea of recreating the borders of the former USSR is all but impossible today, let alone sustainable. Russia doesn't want a formal empire, but an informal grouping of independent states under the direction and influence of Moscow. This draws attention to Russia's historical geopolitical interests: to create as much of a buffer between itself (historically the heavily-populated Muscovy region) and future potential aggressors. Russia's borders are utterly deviod of any natural barriers, causing it to expand (whether militarily or diplomatically) to include easily defensible defenses. This has little to do with ideology, as it merely taps into the general needs of any potential Russian leadership. It was seen under the czar, and it was seen under the Party.

We could go into whether the Soviet Union was ever truly socialist in its aims and outlook, but that's a debate for another time (and, on this site, there's always time :rolleyes:). In short, no - any future union that connects Russia with its former empire won't slip into socialism unless the working-classes of all participating members rise up and forcibly remove their oppressors and the system(s) they've created. With all remaning aspects of oppression gone, the workers can go about engaging and constructing a new, freshly liberated society surrounding the general practices of communist democracy. This is a huge "if," though. Socialism can (and never will) be instituted from the top. It doesn't come about that way, as it is unnatural - not to mention impossible - for the ruling financial-political elite to willingly give up its hold on authority. And Putin is the last person to look to for socialism from "the top."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the very idea of recreating the borders of the former USSR is all but impossible today, let alone sustainable.

The original USSR of 1922 excluded the Baltic states, Moldova, and Russia's Baltic enclave, and both Belarus and Ukraine were territorially smaller. I just don't see how recreating a centralized political union in the former Soviet space, less the Baltic states but perhaps plus Bulgaria and part of the Balkans, is a pipe dream.


Russia doesn't want a formal empire, but an informal grouping of independent states under the direction and influence of Moscow.

Where have I heard this before? Um, Warsaw Pact? [No, there was no such thing as a "Soviet empire," only a Soviet sphere of influence.]

[Le Socialiste]

The original USSR of 1922 excluded the Baltic states, Moldova, and Russia's Baltic enclave, and both Belarus and Ukraine were territorially smaller. I just don't see how recreating a centralized political union in the former Soviet space, less the Baltic states but perhaps plus Bulgaria and part of the Balkans, is a pipe dream.

Because such large-scale endeavors have, in today's world, been proven unnecessary where material interests and matters of influence are concerned. The sheer size of the USSR, coupled with its grossly enlarged military complex and financial struggles, left the country in an untenable position. It could no longer maintain a massive empire (and it was ultimately an empire) and manage its hold over a variety of near vassal states. Material conditions and a burgeoning globalization push made the state of the formal empire obsolete.

Is this to say empires themselves are no longer feasible? In the old sense perhaps, but the concept of empire has shifted. It is no longer desirable to invade, conquer, and forcibly annex an independent nation for its labor and resources; rather, powerful countries have taken an indirect approach with talk of 'democracy' and 'financial and social betterment.' Why control another state outright when you could profit just as easily by indirectly controlling its economic and political policies?

Just look at the relationship currently held between Russia and Belarus. Russia has all but complete control over the latter's business and energy sectors and has significant sway over the country's political and military institutions. Moscow is able to do this without taking Belarus outright - it provides the necessary wiggle-room in case things go south. In short, Russia's recent financial centralization drives aren't about recreating the borders of its old empire. It's about creating and sustaining complete and total influence over the countries involved while maintaining some semblance of 'national sovereignty.'


Where have I heard this before? Um, Warsaw Pact? [No, there was no such thing as a "Soviet empire," only a Soviet sphere of influence.]

The Soviets forcibly annexed several countries that were independent prior to the end of WWII, expanding its borders at a time when such growth was deemed necessary. It came down to national security at a time when the Russian interior (the region surrounding Moscow) was particularly vulnerable. Therefore, the Soviet's actions (while condemnable - and I would emphasize this point in case anyone calls me out on supporting imperialism) were understandable from a geopolitical standpoint. The Warsaw Pact was but an extension of this necessity, bringing Russian forces into Central Europe where its presence was desperately needed. This strategy is no longer a viable option. It comes down to an establishment of influence and maintaining one's hold on it. The days in which nations battled it out for the forceful annexation of land is, for the time being, nonexistent.