Soviet Imperialism

[MKS]

The leaders of the Cuban revolution and most latin american revolts decryed the imperialism of the north americans and western europeans. However couldnt a person make the same argument against Soviet Imperialism. The soviets much like USA usurped power in many eastern european nations, they exploitated situtations in other nations for their owne gains, to push the teneants of Soviet "communism". they were very militaristic, that is they had a huge miltiary, and a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. They were a superpower, an imperial power, werent they?

I consider myself an anti-imperialist whether it be North American, British, Japanese, etc. Any nation or state that seeks to adavnce its own policies and beliefs onto another state is wrong. Even if it is communism, communism cannot be pushed onto the people, if its it becomes another form of oppression and maybe even dictatorship.

[OleMarxco]

Word up, Comrade. A communist revolution should not be "pushing", but be "pulling", if you know what I mean ;)

[LSD]

You're right, communist imperialism is a contradiction. Soviet imperialsm, on the other hand, is not.

The USSR, despite the grandiose claims of dictators and bureaucrats was not an idealistically communist state, nor was it on the "road" towards communism, or in a "transitional socialism" to communism. They were state-capitalism through and thorugh, with a strong element of authoritarianism and oppresison.

But as for why Latin Americans condemned US imperialism as opposed to Soviet, there's a very simple answer: Latin America was never oppressed by the Soviet Union.. On the other hand, the history of South and Central America since the nineteenth century has been one of American intervention and American oppression.

It's like if you lived in China during the thirties. Sure you could understand that the Nazis were bad and all, but you're pressing concern was the Japanese. After all, they were ones who were liable to kill you. Likewise, peasants in Colombia aren't being killed by Soviet sponsored terrorists, but by American sponsored ones. So is it any wonder that they focus their anger?

[MKS]

But as for why Latin Americans condemned US imperialism as opposed to Soviet, there's a very simple answer: Latin America was never oppressed by the Soviet Union..

I agree, but imperialism is imperialism. why split hairs? Obviously the direct oppression of the latin nations by the north americans had an affect on the beliefs and actions of the latin revolutionaries, but the broad ideal of imperialism should create a reaction of resistance or at least aboration. Soviet Imperialism would have affected latin america if it would have pentrated the almost airtight hold by n.america on the entire hempishpre. they tried it with cuba.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:41 AM
The soviets much like USA usurped power in many eastern european nations, they exploitated situtations in other nations for their owne gains, to push the teneants of Soviet "communism".
Well, no, not "to push the teneants of Soviet "communism"." After Lenin's death, the Soviet government did not do anything for ideological reasons...it was the other way around, ideology was changed again and again to justify whatever they decided to do to serve their national interests, as narrowly perceived by Kremlin apparatchiks.

A lot of leftists, especially Maoists, talk about "Soviet imperialism" and I think it is indeed a contradiction, but not in the way you mean.

Imperialism, since Lenin's book by that title, has had a meaning beyond just military aggression.

It refers to a stage of capitalism, characterized by capital concentrated in a few giant banks and corporations, and exploitation of less developed countries by means of the export of capital, among other criteria.

Clearly this did not apply to the USSR. Even if some people thought capitalism had been restored, clearly it was not at the kind of level of development as the advanced capitalist countries, nor was it exporting capital to economically exploit the rest of the world.

On the contrary, the USSR's foreign relations cost it money, it subsidized less developed countries in COMECON, as well as the less developed Central Asian republics of the USSR. That's why the Kremlin dropped all that when it ran into economic trouble.

Certainly the USSR committed aggression and oppression which should be condemned, but "imperialism" I think is theoretically wrong. To treat the US and USSR as the same in relation to the world class struggle, as some did...was practically wrong.


Any nation or state that seeks to adavnce its own policies and beliefs onto another state is wrong. Even if it is communism, communism cannot be pushed onto the people, if its it becomes another form of oppression and maybe even dictatorship.

That's a good guideline...as Robespierre said during the French Revolution, people don't like missionaries with bayonets. They're likely not to welcome a revolution brought to 'em by foreign invaders.

Like many guidelines, it becomes a problem if you make it a commandment graven in stone...sometimes military force should be used to aid a revolutionary uprising in a neighboring country, for example.

[DoomedOne]

I always saw the Soviet State at the time you're talking of, during most of the Latin America revolutions, a totalitarian state, making it as oppressive to it's own people as a capitalist society, if not more. On the subject of imperialism, however, the USSR did not attempt to push their own ideologies on others. The three leaders of this crime are Catholics, fundamentalists and the US. It's something unique to those religions and therefore that state.

[MKS]

the USSR did not attempt to push their own ideologies on others

Poland, Hungary, East Germany almost every Eastern European nation "liberated" by the soviets during WWII, had a puppet soviet government established in the intrests of the Soviet Union. They tried it with Cuba, but it didnt work as well as they hoped. They were imperialists.


The three leaders of this crime are Catholics, fundamentalists and the US. It's something unique to those religions and therefore that state.

many nations at one point were imperialists; Japan, England (still are), France, Germany, Spain, Russia (pre Soviet Union, and post) etc. Imperialism is the direct imposition of a nation ideal or principle upon a weaker state or group of people. The USA is an imperialist power, perhaps the strongest in the world.