USSR and imperialism

[Colombia]

Many of you socialists here talk about how imperialism is wrong and that Capitalists take over others for more power.However, has the USSR not done the same as well.What about Poland.Stalin agreed with Hitler's plan to take over Poland.Clearly this is a sign of imperialism.What of Germany after WW2?Weren't the West and the East supposed to unite but thanks to the USSR did not?Clearly another sign.

[Roses in the Hospital]

The mistake your making is assuming that we, as Socialists, agree with everthing, supposedly, done in the name of Socialism.
I think you will find the majority of people here are fiercely apposed to many aspects of Stalin's regime.
Stalin had one interpretation of Socialism, we, here, have many others so there is no reason why we have to support a decision just because the person who makes the decision claims to be a Socialist...

[DaCuBaN]

Weren't the West and the East supposed to unite but thanks to the USSR did not?

This is what our history books tell us - I'm sure the history written by Stalin's supporters rather than those of the likes of Churchill would say that unification did not occur because the westerners demanded their share ;)

Basically the USSR wanted a socialist Germany, and the rest of the allies wanted a Capitalist one.

As far as Poland is concerned however, one must remember that Germany was divided by what was known as the Polish Corridor(sp? - it doesn't look right at all) So in fact what Stalin agreed to was Germany taking back that which had been forcefully taken from them. The fact that they didn't stop there is another story - and is of no relevance.

It was pretty obvious the way things were going - indeed the british prime minister at the time - the much maligned Neville Chaimberlain - is thought by many to have deliberately sat back to build up the forces necessary to oppose.

The question you must ask of course is why didn't the UK object to the recapture of Alsace-Lorraine? Why didn't the US intervene sooner, like when Germany invaded Poland? Why didn't we try to stop the Axis alliance?

Simple: most people look out for themselves, and those who succeed in attaining a position of power tend to be very good at this.

[Salvador Allende]

Do not ever forget that West Germany was formed before East Germany. It was the West that tried to push Capitalism on Europe. The USSR offered a deal where East Germany would reunite with West as a neutral nation neither affiliated with the West nor East, but that was not accepted by Western leaders. Koba himself freed East Europe and did a good job of showing them the route to Socialism.

You bring up an interesting point about imperialism. When Malenkov took over, USSR socialism began and the USSR raised East European quotas by as much as 40%. From there it got worse under Khruschov as various revolts against Soviet imperialism were put down. The USSR made East Europe blind lackeys of Soviet Imperialism. I fully support the "Three World" system. The First World was the USSR and USA who were the imperialist nations. The Second World was the imperialist nation's lackeys. And the Third World was affected by no imperialism at all.

It is a shame that only 3 men had the true understanding of Socialism to actually stand up to Soviet imperialism and see it as being just as bad, if not worse than US imperialism (by 3 men, I obviously refer to Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceaucescu and Mao Zedong). Khruschovist State-Capitalism was the main cause for this rise of imperialism. Khruschovism is a direct continuation of ideals first put forward by Trotskyist Revisionists, Khruschovism is more or less dead right now. But, Xiaopingism and Trotskyism are two things that all Socialists must look for and attempt to weed out through education of the masses and dispelling false ideas about Comrade Stalin and Mao, while showing the true nature of Deng Xiaoping, Nikita Khruschov and Leon Trotsky.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Colombia+Jun 8 2004, 06:28 PM--> (Colombia @ Jun 8 2004, 06:28 PM)Many of you socialists here talk about how imperialism is wrong and that Capitalists take over others for more power. [/b]

The first thing to take note of is that anyone who supports the U.S.S.R is Anti-Socialist. The U.S.S.R. solidified its power by trampling over worker's power.


Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:28 PM
However, has the USSR not done the same as well.What about Poland.Stalin agreed with Hitler's plan to take over Poland.

The U.S.S.R. actually made an agreement with Britain and the United States to share the spoils of land after World War II. Like you say, Stalin, and I will add, every single Bolshevik leader, was an Imperialist. Stalin actually sent troops into Greece to help the United States and Britain crush the leftist populists, who were previously the Anti-Fascist resistance, and replace them with a bunch of monarchists and Nazi collaborators. The Soviet Union also regularly occupied lands thye shouldn't have even been in, making themselves look quite like the Tzar, and Stalin himself was famous for constantly deporting ethnic minorities as were other Soviet leaders, including Tatars, Chechens, Poles, Ingushes, Czechs, Lithuanians, Germans, Koreans, Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, Kurds, Turks, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians, Latvians, Estonians, Jews, and even Georgians. Stalin and the rest of the Bolsheviks were Imperialist bastards.


[email protected] 8 2004, 06:28 PM
What of Germany after WW2?Weren't the West and the East supposed to unite but thanks to the USSR did not?Clearly another sign.

On this part you're wrong. Stalin's role in that was dispicable, but it's wrong to say Germany was supposed to be united. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to split it up. The U.S. was worried that a united Germany would have a strong labor movement, so they had to split up Germany and reinstall a bunch of former Nazis.

[Comrade Raz]

The USSR, post-Lenin was an imperialist state, there is no denying that, u just have to look to there actions in Hungary and other places(i forget where) where they acted as a colonialist power and not as a liberating force.

[Colombia]

Which brings up the question.Has there even been a true socialist nation?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:24 PM
Which brings up the question.Has there even been a true socialist nation?
No.

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:24 PM
Which brings up the question.Has there even been a true socialist nation?
you have seen my list in your other topic.

[elijahcraig]

The first thing to take note of is that anyone who supports the U.S.S.R is Anti-Socialist. The U.S.S.R. solidified its power by trampling over worker's power.

Hippie trash.


Which brings up the question.Has there even been a true socialist nation?

Cuba from 1959 to present, USSR until the mid 60s or so, China until the Gang of Four were overthrown, Albania until after Hoxha, to note a few major ones.

Note that Stalin himself did not believe the USSR to be fully socialistic when he wrote “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”—it was partly socialist, but still had many things to work on to become a completed socialist state. Tragically, revisionists took power after Stalin’s death and gradually implemented state capitalism, or state monopoly capitalism.


QUOTE (Colombia @ Jun 9 2004, 05:24 PM)
Which brings up the question.Has there even been a true socialist nation?

No.

Hippie trash, part 2.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:56 AM

The first thing to take note of is that anyone who supports the U.S.S.R is Anti-Socialist. The U.S.S.R. solidified its power by trampling over worker's power.

Hippie trash.

If keeping it Proletarian is considered being hippie trash, count me in. But where I come from we simply call it not being a sucker!

The problem with the USSR was capitalism. What are a bunch of capitalists who call themselves communists? Capitalists who call themselves communists!

And to this day, people arent really scared of socialism, if you talk to them and listen closely, most peoples problem is with this idea of a bunch of capitalist liars organizing into a government that can openly exploit them, they picture slavery.

[elijahcraig]

If keeping it Proletarian is considered being hippie trash, count me in. But where I come from we simply call it not being a sucker!

Well it’s not, so thank god for you, you’re not a hippie.


The problem with the USSR was capitalism. What are a bunch of capitalists who call themselves communists? Capitalists who call themselves communists!

Prove it—economically.


And to this day, people arent really scared of socialism, if you talk to them and listen closely, most peoples problem is with this idea of a bunch of capitalist liars organizing into a government that can openly exploit them, they picture slavery.

They picture what the ruling class of capitalism has told them to picture. Explain it better, some accept your answer, others are too brainwashed.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by elijahcraig+Posted on Jun 11 2004, 11:56 AM--> (elijahcraig @ Posted on Jun 11 2004, 11:56 AM)Hippie trash.

Cuba from 1959 to present, USSR until the mid 60s or so, China until the Gang of Four were overthrown, Albania until after Hoxha, to note a few major ones. [/b]

Just because I do not enjoy the crushing of worker's organization as you do, doesn't make me a "hippie." Besides, what I said was a fact, not an opinion. The U.S.S.R. solidified its power by dismantling the Socialist elements that were forming, namely the Factor Council's, and they continued to have the Party run everything, that's Anti-Socialist, since Socialism has always been about worker's liberation. Neither Cuba, China, or Albania, have ever liberated the workers from state control either, that isn't Socialist.


[email protected] on Jun 11 2004, 11:56 AM
Note that Stalin himself did not believe the USSR to be fully socialistic when he wrote “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”—it was partly socialist, but still had many things to work on to become a completed socialist state. Tragically, revisionists took power after Stalin’s death and gradually implemented state capitalism, or state monopoly capitalism.

The U.S.S.R. carried out developement by simply forcing peasents to work to death until the U.S.S.R. was sufficiently industrialized. That's not Socialism, that's the sort of "developement" Park Chung Hee implemented in South Korea.

[elijahcraig]

Just because I do not enjoy the crushing of worker's organization as you do, doesn't make me a "hippie."

Yep, that’s what I said.


Besides, what I said was a fact, not an opinion. The U.S.S.R. solidified its power by dismantling the Socialist elements that were forming, namely the Factor Council's, and they continued to have the Party run everything, that's Anti-Socialist, since Socialism has always been about worker's liberation. Neither Cuba, China, or Albania, have ever liberated the workers from state control either, that isn't Socialist.

You are wrong.

And what does this mean: “have ever liberated the workers from state control either, that isn't Socialist”…? They smashed the state, and a socialist state was built in its place. That IS Socialist.


The U.S.S.R. carried out developement by simply forcing peasents to work to death until the U.S.S.R. was sufficiently industrialized. That's not Socialism, that's the sort of "developement" Park Chung Hee implemented in South Korea.

These are lies. “Forced” collectivization? The collectivization process was held up by one thing only on the road to industrialization—rich landowners. They murdered populations of animals which led to famine. The collectivization process was moving at a rate of 60% because the workers wanted to collectivize at a time when the party had estimated only about 20% or less would be collectivized. Just an example of “forced” collectivization, or “forced working to death.”

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by elijahcraig+Posted on Jun 12 2004, 11:12 PM--> (elijahcraig @ Posted on Jun 12 2004, 11:12 PM)And what does this mean: “have ever liberated the workers from state control either, that isn't Socialist”…? [/b]

The "that isn't Socialist" line at the end was a rushed mistake, it almost distorts the meaning. Although I think you understood the statement well, not Cuba, Albania, Romania, the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, or anyother "Socialist" nation you can think of has ever liberated the workers from complete state control. The Soviet Union dismantled all the Factory Councils, the real hope for workers organization.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jun 12 2004, 11:12 PM
They smashed the state, and a socialist state was built in its place. That IS Socialist.

Please try reading, you're being moronic. No one is criticizing the Soviet Union for overthrowing the Tzar, that isn't the issue. The people were already creating movements in defiance of the Tzar, and building some sort of Socialism. The Factory Council's were making real progress in worker's rights. And the Bolsheviks took advantage of this by claiming to be Socialist while launching a bloody coup, dismantling the Factory Committees, arrested anyone who opposed them including real leftists, and basically created a system of "developement" like the ones they have had in South Korea.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jun 12 2004, 11:12 PM
These are lies. “Forced” collectivization?

Yes genius, forced.


Originally posted by [email protected] on Jun 12 2004, 11:12 PM
They murdered populations of animals which led to famine.

:lol: :lol: Oh, now the famine happened because of a process of exterminating animals? Right, I'm sure you have scholarly sources for that one.


[email protected] on Jun 12 2004, 11:12 PM
The collectivization process was moving at a rate of 60% because the workers wanted to collectivize at a time when the party had estimated only about 20% or less would be collectivized. Just an example of “forced” collectivization, or “forced working to death.”

Yeah great, thanks for proving nothing. The worker's "wanted to collectivize?" Right, I'm sure the Tzar himself would want to collectivize with soldiers with guns pointing at his back. Do you know how many workers strikes the Bolsheviks had to crush by force? Read a book: http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/s...1/bolintro.html (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/russia/sp001861/bolintro.html)

[Salvador Allende]

Raisa is totally correct. The problem with the USSR was Capitalists who claimed to be Communists. We all saw this with Khruschov and Malenkov and their successors. Actually, come to think of it, virtually NO ONE saw this apart from Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceausescu, Enver Hoxha and Kim Il Sung. There is something obviously wrong in the movement when people still blame Koba for all of their problems and totally ignore Khruschov and Malenkov or consider them "real Marxist-Leninists". With views like that Xiaoping, Trotsky and Gorbachev must have been the greatest "Marxist-Leninists" of all-time!