Soviet Union...

[R_P_A_S]

damn people. that's what it seems like. How you just gonna go marching with your army to neighboring countries and toppled their government system and install your own "communist puppets?"

I though the proletariat was supposed to do this. not some foreign bully. no wonder communism has such a bad name, and left people with a bad taste in their mouth..

why the hell do some of you pump this like it was cool or still rock all your 60 year old soviet propaganda?

[manic expression]

I presume you mean the satellite states set up in Eastern Europe.

Yes, of course there is disagreement over the Soviet Union's actions after WWII, but one must look at the surrounding situation. The fact is that the people of the USSR had sufferred two devestating invasions within a span of a few decades, invasions which cost millions upon millions of lives. What did you expect them to do? Just give their former and potentially future enemies power again? From just a geo-political standpoint, creating buffer states is something that any power would do. I'm not saying it's right at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not devoid of reasons that one should understand.

From what I can tell at this point, I have many problems with what the USSR did in Eastern Europe after WWII, but I do see the circumstances surrounding it as well.

[Ander]

I think propaganda of most kinds is pretty cool just because it's an interesting part of history. If I could get my hands on Nazi propaganda I would do so.

I agree with your point about Soviet imperialism however. This was supposed to be part of exporting revolution and while it was much cleaner than American overseas intervention (which generally ended in brutal dictatorships) there were some slip ups. Afghanistan is a pretty solid example of this.

In my opinion, the problem was the Cold War attitude. If it hadn't been for this mentality of having to compete against the United States for influence, some of the more crazy actions would probably not have occurred. Unfortunately, the conditions did not make it so.

[RedSabine]

The soviet leadership at the time (I.E. Stalin) didn't want to "export communism". There wasn't any communism to export! It just wanted bufferstates between itsself and Germany, and to have a fighting chance against the United States, which was quickly consolidating its global hegemony. The USSR just wanted a piece of the post WWII pie.

[chimx]

Originally posted by manic expression@March 15, 2007 08:50 pm
I presume you mean the satellite states set up in Eastern Europe.

Yes, of course there is disagreement over the Soviet Union's actions after WWII, but one must look at the surrounding situation. The fact is that the people of the USSR had sufferred two devestating invasions within a span of a few decades, invasions which cost millions upon millions of lives. What did you expect them to do? Just give their former and potentially future enemies power again? From just a geo-political standpoint, creating buffer states is something that any power would do. I'm not saying it's right at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not devoid of reasons that one should understand.

From what I can tell at this point, I have many problems with what the USSR did in Eastern Europe after WWII, but I do see the circumstances surrounding it as well.

Imperialism isn't simply defined in terms of territorial acquisitions or the physical conquering and subjugation of a foreign body. It also implies indirect control via economic and/or political domination. Communist parties of the Eastern Bloc were generally subject to the Soviet politburo. This inhibited legislation that many felt was in the best interest of their nation or class, resulting in the decline of any sort of autonomy or freedom. When one is denied either, one has to wonder the purpose of what the soviets called, "worker power."

Of course, following the Sino-Soviet rift, "buffer states" were able to manipulate international politics for their advantage. The classic example is the manner in which Kim Il-sung of North Korea played off the fears of both China and the Soviets to maximize the DPRK's gain. Prior to this, of course, it was still barely anything more than a puppet state. Is it any wonder that the Korean War was only able to end once Stalin had died, despite two years of non-movement on either side?

I can't understand how anyone could apologize for such activity. You can dismiss it as the "same 'ol" of imperial powers, but the degree of manipulation the Soviets used is ghastly and rivals that of the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by chimx+March 15, 2007 09:39 pm--> (chimx @ March 15, 2007 09:39 pm)

manic expression

@March 15, 2007 08:50 pm
I presume you mean the satellite states set up in Eastern Europe.

Yes, of course there is disagreement over the Soviet Union's actions after WWII, but one must look at the surrounding situation. The fact is that the people of the USSR had sufferred two devestating invasions within a span of a few decades, invasions which cost millions upon millions of lives. What did you expect them to do? Just give their former and potentially future enemies power again? From just a geo-political standpoint, creating buffer states is something that any power would do. I'm not saying it's right at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not devoid of reasons that one should understand.

From what I can tell at this point, I have many problems with what the USSR did in Eastern Europe after WWII, but I do see the circumstances surrounding it as well.

Imperialism isn't simply defined in terms of territorial acquisitions or the physical conquering and subjugation of a foreign body. It also implies indirect control via economic and/or political domination. Communist parties of the Eastern Bloc were generally subject to the Soviet politburo. This inhibited legislation that many felt was in the best interest of their nation or class, resulting in the decline of any sort of autonomy or freedom. When one is denied either, one has to wonder the purpose of what the soviets called, "worker power."

Of course, following the Sino-Soviet rift, "buffer states" were able to manipulate international politics for their advantage. The classic example is the manner in which Kim Il-sung of North Korea played off the fears of both China and the Soviets to maximize the DPRK's gain. Prior to this, of course, it was still barely anything more than a puppet state. Is it any wonder that the Korean War was only able to end once Stalin had died, despite two years of non-movement on either side?

I can't understand how anyone could apologize for such activity. You can dismiss it as the "same 'ol" of imperial powers, but the degree of manipulation the Soviets used is ghastly and rivals that of the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. [/b]

Everyone knows that what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe was against the best interests of those various nations and their people, but I didn't argue to the contrary.

We are using the term "imperialism" very loosely. "Imperialism" has to do with a lot of things, whereas the Soviet Union was created buffer zones through overt control.

To make unqualified comparisons with capitalist imperialism is in defiance of the facts IMO.

[chimx]

Most people define imperialism loosely purposefully. How do you define it so as to exclude the creation of subjugated buffer states? How is that at all different (if not worse) than what the United States did in areas such as South Korea, Japan, etc.

[Ander]

The Soviets also worked extensively through political means. Most of the Communist parties in Europe and Latin America were subject to Soviet direction; they basically dictated each party's policy. Many times this ended with unfortunate results, such as in the Spanish Civil War where Stalinism allowed the fascists to take control.

[R_P_A_S]

do you think socialism would of fair better under someone else's "dictatorship" per say. for example if like someone else besides the USSR being the "socialist super power" was encouraging and helping others achieve revolutions and backing different regions of the world do this.

I know they did help lots of other countries, specially here in Latin America. BUT! i get the feeling that they did it only for THEIR imperialist interest and competition with the United States. as opposed to bring about world socialism and democracy to Latin America.

and the *****-ass U.S. obviously also "liberated" latin America from "the iron grip of communism" FOR THEIR own benefit. i.e. free trade, exploitation, you know the deal.

[Ander]

Yes, it was pretty much for their own interests to fight capitalism wherever they could.

And it really depends on the circumstances as to what country would have been a "better" socialist superpower. Under the intense pressures of the Cold War I'm not sure if any socialist country could have progressed normally.

[Vargha Poralli]

Soviet imperialism as far as I know is just a Ultra-Maoist non-sense.There no financial capital export from Soviet Union to the other communist and developing countries.

In fact Trade with them had been in disproportionate favor to other countries. For e.g USSR bought Sugar from Cuba for more than the market rate and sold oil to them for less than the market rate.

The term Soviet Imperialism is just an outcome of petty politics because of ther is some egoist misunderstanding between Chinese and Soviet bureaucrats. This term has now been adopted by ultra-lefts in this board too.

[Hiero]

There were communist in European countries before the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. They Soviet Union just aided the communists they could and help them set up a government. This is not imperialism. It would have been wrong to leave these communist alone to face the US and British imperialists.

I think after WW2 and after Stalin the USSR may have had their own interests as well as the interest the communis they aided. There is the criticism that after the oppressed people liberated themsevles, that their trade with the USSR made them dependent on the USSR, only investing in industries that the USSR wanted. Che Guevara said that it is important that after liberation countries don't fall into a similar dependence on another super state, like the USSR. I think that may be indication he was worried about Cuba's reliance on sugar trade with the USSR.

[R_P_A_S]

I think some of you here should snap out of it and for a minute think about the people, people outside the communist parties, and the bureaucracy the very same people we want to liberate and fight for. and how this power trip, and personal competition only hurt more in the long run than it really help, or help communism progress.

I might be new here but you just can't shove your ideas and methods on people like that.
Even if it's good and better for everyone in the long run. I know there's no A_B_C manual on how to properly bring about socialism.

But It's obvious that mistakes were made and instead of justifying them, celebrating them and their contributors I think we should move on and reflect back on it as a learning experience not some sort of accomplishment or glorious time.

By no means am I trying to say that capitalism is better or that any bourgeoisie victory was good for the people in general HELL NAH! But I think we should move on from "the cool tanks", military parades and huge portraits of "leaders".. l

[( R )evolution]

I personally think we should criticize soviet actions as much as we do to western actions. We know the USSR was not real communism so we should stop defending them. Move away from trying to defend the USSR and start preaching the real message of communism and that of equality

[Budapestkick]

The satelite states could not be classsed as imperialism because imperialism by definition means exploitation of one territory for the benefit of another (the imperialist nation). Russia never really benefitted from the satelite states. It sold valuable exports such as oil to the satelite states for as little as one third of it's market value in exchange for shoddy consumer goods.

It is important to remember that Russia was invaded by 21 countries in 1918. The propping up of the satelite states was probably seen as a prudent defense by the bureaucracy rather than as any kind of expansionism. That doesn't justify it of course but those who equate it to traditional capitalist imperialism are completely incorrect.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Budapestkick@March 18, 2007 12:35 am
Russia never really benefitted from the satelite states.

SovRom in Romania, joint stock companies elswhere, SMAD and SAG in Eastern Germany? USSR took (not "bought", but just packed it up) about 124 milion $ in equipment and resources out of Hungary in the first years after the war. They brought out about 100 milion $ a year in coal out of Poland through so-called "trade agreements" (that one was signed august 16th 1945. - I'm giving you a verifiable data so you don't think that I'm bullshitting you): that sum represented a final profit per year after re-selling. Those profits were larger than Britain's investment-returns in India. Under the privilige of "iron curtain" and the Marshall plan Moscow robbed its colonies off its valuables for small amounts of rubles and sold those commodities to the west for American dollars.

So don't be ridiculous. Post-war colonial policy extended USSR's life span.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by DJ-TC@March 18, 2007 01:23 pm
So don't be ridiculous. Post-war colonial policy extended USSR's life span.

I would say that post-war policy allowed the USSR to regenerate after experiencing one of the most devestating invasions in human history. The equipment they took gave them the ability to regain what they had lost during the war.

[WUOrevolt]

No matter how you look at it you can't call the USSR communist. There is no state in Communism, and I would hardly call the USSR socialiat either, but im not going to get into that now. And what the USSR did after WW2 is Imperialism. No matter how you look at it, there were soviet troops occupying parts of eastern Europe, which amounts to imperialism. Many may try to justify it using what happened to the Soviets over the span of 2 world wars, but you can't justify what they did.

[Digitalism]

Ok, bear with me because I learned this in my "World History" class last semester. Our professor, came off as sort of neutral when talking about this as countless times he repeated "I dont want to sound like I'm a communist sympathizer, but I understand what they wanted"

he mentioned that why USSR started this "Iron Curtain" is because they wanted to protect themselves from the West. I forgot the exact term he called it, but it definitely had everything to do with the West.

Man I sound pretty amateur at this, hey..I'm only learning.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Soviet imperialism as far as I know is just a Ultra-Maoist non-sense.There no financial capital export from Soviet Union to the other communist and developing countries.

In fact Trade with them had been in disproportionate favor to other countries. For e.g USSR bought Sugar from Cuba for more than the market rate and sold oil to them for less than the market rate.

Thanks for clarifying on the difference between the export of goods and the export of capital. For a while, I thought that the subsidized trade did qualify as imperialistic.

On the other hand, there were instances of capital export on the part of the Soviet Union, such as the Aswan Dam in Egypt.

You're seeing this being done by China today in Africa (and ironically this has been more effective in alleviating Third-World poverty than Western paternalistic attitudes of "aid" and "charity").

This term has now been adopted by ultra-lefts in this board too.

It's been awhile since you last posted here, but would you call ComradeRed an "ultra-left," too?

SovRom in Romania, joint stock companies elswhere, SMAD and SAG in Eastern Germany? USSR took (not "bought", but just packed it up) about 124 milion $ in equipment and resources out of Hungary in the first years after the war. They brought out about 100 milion $ a year in coal out of Poland through so-called "trade agreements" (that one was signed august 16th 1945. - I'm giving you a verifiable data so you don't think that I'm bullshitting you): that sum represented a final profit per year after re-selling. Those profits were larger than Britain's investment-returns in India. Under the privilige of "iron curtain" and the Marshall plan Moscow robbed its colonies off its valuables for small amounts of rubles and sold those commodities to the west for American dollars.

Thanks for pointing those out.