Okay, so I’ve got a couple of issues with your response. First of all, the referendum only polled 9 out of the 15 republics. The other six boycotted it since they were already pushing for independence. Moreover, within months, nearly every republic declared full independence. If they truly didn’t want to secede from the USSR, would they have declared independence?
Secondly, I don’t think nostalgia is a good gauge of what people want. Individuals have a tendency to romanticize the past especially during hard times. For example, many citizens of African countries revel in reminiscing about the colonial era due to economic hardships faced today. Is that what they truly want? Probably not. It is usually due to poor knowledge of colonial history that they have these sentiments.
Furthermore, I’m well aware that the US is a despicable country, and my increasing knowledge about its history only fuels my hatred of it, but you’re bordering on whataboutism if the standard for the most progressive movement of the 20th century is being “not as bad as the US” which is a pretty low bar.
Edit: You can’t compare the confederacy - a slave-owning rebellion fighting to preserve human bondage to the soviet republics - nations seeking independence from an authoritarian superstate. If you really want to compare the USSR with the US civil war, it would be better to compare it to the 13 colonies fighting for independence from the British crown.
Besides, you still didn’t address the core argument: If Soviet rule was truly beneficial, why did so many nations (at least 5) risk war and economic collapse to escape it?
The small few that were boycotting it each deserve more investigation than a single Lemmy comment thread. The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements. It isn’t sufficient to say that they boycotted it, therefore the USSR was evil, it’s more accurate to say that it needs investigation. I can’t do the intricacies of their nationalist movements any justice in a Lemmy thread other than telling you that they exist.
Secondly, yes, they did vote to leave months later. The mess with the botched coup, the existence of a weird new political position that stood against the Soviet balance of power in a way that messed up the economy (long story as well), and privatization had already been at play and came to a head months later. The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
As for Soviet Nostalgia, that’s just the term. Look at the polling data, the questions specifically ask about economic situations or if it was bad that the Soviet Union fell. These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states. After the fall, an estimated 7 million people died due to the collapse of social safety nets and the destruction of the economy. Capitalism was and is disastrous for these nations, whose metrics are only just now approaching their Soviet Levels, such as life expectancy, while metrics like wealth disparity and poverty are massive.
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
As for US bad, I’ll ask you to name a more influential country than the US or the USSR during the 20th century. In terms of sheer impact, the USSR was by far the most progressive. The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded. It isn’t just a “low bar,” the United States is perhaps the single most evil country to ever exist outside of Nazi Germany, and the Soviets opposed both.
The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements.
So now Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Moldovans, and Armenians suddenly became fascists? Idk, i feel this is a very dishonest take, but who knows what justification you have for this stance.
The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
And yet Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved to swiftly reform or completely dismantle the system. Couldn’t it be that they thought the system to be outdated? You do realize that the main reason many grew tired of the Soviet way of doing things was because of Deng Xiaoping’s capitalist reforms putting pressure on the USSR to dissolve right?
These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states.
So why haven’t they tried to reinstate the USSR?
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
I’m well into the second chapter
The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded
This still has whataboutist undertones. The USSR also crushed uprisings (Hungary, Prague Spring), supported brutal regimes (Afghanistan, East Germany), and committed mass killings (Holodomor and the Great Purge).
This entire comment is you speaking quite confidently about situations you evidently do not know about. My advice is to not speak on subjects you only think you know about regarding US geopolitical enemies.
Again, I cannot give an accurate assessment of each of their nationalist movements in a Lemmy comment chain. I could point you to the heroization of Nazi collaborater Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, as an example, but that itself requires investigation. It isn’t a dishonest stance, rather, I am telling you to do genuine research into these.
As for the Soviet Economy, I have already linked sources on why growth slowed towards the end and that it wasn’t outdated. There were contributing factors like planning by hand rather than computerization, and focusing much of the GDP on millitarization, but ultimately the economy was stronger and grew faster than the current Capitalist system. Further, Deng didn’t add “Capitalist reforms,” he pivoted to a Socialist Market Economy. That in and of itself is a huge topic.
The Russians haven’t re-instated Socialism because they are in a Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Socialism needs to be achieved via Revolution, and that has a lot of requirements, especially considering current NATO encirclement is a constant threat where even if a Revolution occured, the same thing that happened in 1917 would happen, mass invasion by Capitalist countries to stop Socialism in its tracks (14 countries invaded Russia in 1917). Technically Belarus has a Socialist Market Economy still, and is generally doing much better than its neighboring countries that went full on into Capitalism.
As for Blackshirts, the next 3 chapters are perhaps the most important for this conversation. It goes over “left-anticommunism” in the west, the benefits and drawbacks of the Soviet System, and what led to its collapse (in Parenti’s eyes). Honestly, if I were you I’d stop talking to people about the Soviets until you have finished the book, and taken the time to digest it, but if you have specific questions I can help.
The last chapters go over the devastation Capitalism brought to the USSR, which is also topical for this convo.
Back to “uprisings.” Again, this is why you really shouldn’t use topics you aren’t aware of as points in your argument. In Hungary and Prague, both “uprisings” were US-Backed, involved mass lynchings of Soviet officials before the Soviets sent in the millitary, and were led by genuine fascists. In Hungary, for example, they even let out hundreds of Nazis from prison to assist with the slaughter of Soviets, and the Peasantry helped the Millitary put it down. As for the “mass killings,” it isn’t accurate to call a famine a “mass killing” rather than a huge tragedy, and further the Purges were in the vast majority of cases simply expelling from the Party, actual punishment was usually imprisonment. Execution was relatively rare in comparison.
If you genuinely do not know enough about an event, please, just don’t speak on it.
Okay, i won’t speak on things i don’t know too well, i will however call out the blatant lies in your comment.
Deng didn’t add “Capitalist reforms,” he pivoted to a Socialist Market Economy
This is a lie! Deng explicitly introduced market reforms, privatization, and allowed foreign investment. If it wasn’t capitalism, why does China today have billionaires, stock markets, and private enterprise?
Execution was relatively rare in comparison.
Another lie! The Stalinist purges killed millions. Denying this is blatant historical revisionism. Vasily Blokhin the chief executioner of the NKVD and one of the most prolific executioners in world history has more than 7,000 executions to his name. Are you denying this clear evidence? Also, don’t get me started on the massive number of graves that were discovered
No, it is not a lie. Socialism is a Mode of Production characterized by Public Ownership and Planning as primary in an economy. Markets are not Capitalism. If you recall from Politzer’s work, you can’t look at structures as disconnected from the rest of their context and judge them accurately. Economies aren’t 30% Socialist, 70% Capitalist, or anything like that. They can be 30% public, 70% private, but these factors are part of the same connected whole. The private interacts with the public at every step.
The United States is Capitalist because it is driven by Capital and the State supports that. The PRC is Socialist because it is driven by Public Ownership and planning, and markets support that. If you want yet another article, Domenico Losurdo’s Has China Turned to Capitalism? Reflections on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism is a good article on the subject. We can go in-depth about the PRC’s economy if you want to, and why it’s much better to categorize it as Socialist.
As for the Great Purge, I am not lying. My belief, based on archival evidence, is that Western historians often intentionally lie, such as Robert Conquest, that millions of people were killed, and that everyone purged was executed. The real character is that the vast majority were not killed, but simply expelled from the party, and of those sentenced to death, many were sent to the GULAGs for re-education and released later. This is backed up by archival evidence. The KGB’s own internal records day 700,000 were condemned to death, and we know that many of those in the Soviet justice system condemned to death were instead rehabilitated in GULAGs. Even if all 700,000 were killed, this isn’t millions, yet Robert Conquest reports 12 million killed.
I, very clearly, did not say that nobody was executed. Many were. However, those killed during the era of the Great Purge were often rapists (which was a crime sentenced to death at the time), murderers, and general spies and terrorists. The vast majority of those millions purged were not sentenced to death or executed.
That also doesn’t mean everyone punished was guilty either. I am not defending the excesses of the Great Purge, but explaining that the idea of the Great Purge that exists in your head is likely far and away different from the reality of the situation. I think you did me a disservice by misinterpreting my claims. Moreover, a lot of the Purges from the party were entirely necessary, as the somewhat small but notable Trotskyists and Bukharinists were directly working to sabotage the Socialist system with assassinations, factory espionage, and more. I can’t think of any situation where the correct answer would be to let that continue.
China itself refers to its system as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” indicating that they acknowledge capitalist mechanisms within their socialist framework. I didn’t say China is capitalist (although it is technically correct to say that at present China is state-capitalist with hopes of transitioning to full on socialism), I only said Deng introduced capitalist elements to offset economic downturn which, if i may remind you, resulted in the quadrupling of China’s GDP. Calling it market socialism is a matter of nomenclature alone.
You’re still making revisionist claims in your analysis of Soviet history, but i don’t even know if i have the strength to go on as it’s just back and forth.
SWCC introduced controlled markets, the point about Dialectics is that it isn’t accurate to call them “Capitalist elements.” China already considers itself Socialist, it hopes to transition to later stages of Socialist development. The claim you’re drawing from, that China plans to be a “developed Socialist country by 20XX” is from the standpoint of a country that considers itself Socialist already. We can talk more about SWCC if you want, and how a Socialist Market Economy doesn’t at all function as a Capitalist economy even if it has markets, but that’s not the main point here.
I really want to ask, what claim about the USSR is revisionist? That millions were counted as purged, but purges don’t mean execution? That the KGB’s internal documentation indicates 700,000 were condemned to death, not 12 million like Conquest states, and further that the Soviet justice system frequently didn’t actually execute, just rehabilitate? That there were real assassinations and reasons calling for the Great Purge, like Trotskyist factions working to sabotage factories?
I never once denied that many people were executed. This is undeniable fact, of course it is. However, this was not a case of a rogue state murdering 12 million innocent people, and portraying it as such is part of Western distortion. If you don’t want to continue, I’d suggest digging more into the subject than Wikipedia alone, there are many books on the subject based on archival evidence.
What makes a system capitalist if not markets, private ownership, and wage labor? Self-identification does not determine economic reality.
The revisionism I’m referring to is: Your claim that the Soviet justice system “frequently didn’t actually execute” those sentenced to death is false. Archival NKVD data shows that most of the 700,000 sentenced to death were executed.
Your claim that the purges were primarily about “Trotskyists". The Great Purge targeted high-ranking Party officials, innocent civilians, and the Red Army, NOT just saboteurs. E.g., Stalin purged 80% of his military leadership before WW2. Were all of them traitors?
If Soviet archives themselves acknowledge hundreds of thousands of executions, how is that a “Western lie"? If the KGB’s own documents contradict Stalinist apologists, why should we trust modern revisionists instead?
Okay, so I’ve got a couple of issues with your response. First of all, the referendum only polled 9 out of the 15 republics. The other six boycotted it since they were already pushing for independence. Moreover, within months, nearly every republic declared full independence. If they truly didn’t want to secede from the USSR, would they have declared independence?
Secondly, I don’t think nostalgia is a good gauge of what people want. Individuals have a tendency to romanticize the past especially during hard times. For example, many citizens of African countries revel in reminiscing about the colonial era due to economic hardships faced today. Is that what they truly want? Probably not. It is usually due to poor knowledge of colonial history that they have these sentiments.
Furthermore, I’m well aware that the US is a despicable country, and my increasing knowledge about its history only fuels my hatred of it, but you’re bordering on whataboutism if the standard for the most progressive movement of the 20th century is being “not as bad as the US” which is a pretty low bar.
Edit: You can’t compare the confederacy - a slave-owning rebellion fighting to preserve human bondage to the soviet republics - nations seeking independence from an authoritarian superstate. If you really want to compare the USSR with the US civil war, it would be better to compare it to the 13 colonies fighting for independence from the British crown.
Besides, you still didn’t address the core argument: If Soviet rule was truly beneficial, why did so many nations (at least 5) risk war and economic collapse to escape it?
The small few that were boycotting it each deserve more investigation than a single Lemmy comment thread. The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements. It isn’t sufficient to say that they boycotted it, therefore the USSR was evil, it’s more accurate to say that it needs investigation. I can’t do the intricacies of their nationalist movements any justice in a Lemmy thread other than telling you that they exist.
Secondly, yes, they did vote to leave months later. The mess with the botched coup, the existence of a weird new political position that stood against the Soviet balance of power in a way that messed up the economy (long story as well), and privatization had already been at play and came to a head months later. The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
As for Soviet Nostalgia, that’s just the term. Look at the polling data, the questions specifically ask about economic situations or if it was bad that the Soviet Union fell. These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states. After the fall, an estimated 7 million people died due to the collapse of social safety nets and the destruction of the economy. Capitalism was and is disastrous for these nations, whose metrics are only just now approaching their Soviet Levels, such as life expectancy, while metrics like wealth disparity and poverty are massive.
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
As for US bad, I’ll ask you to name a more influential country than the US or the USSR during the 20th century. In terms of sheer impact, the USSR was by far the most progressive. The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded. It isn’t just a “low bar,” the United States is perhaps the single most evil country to ever exist outside of Nazi Germany, and the Soviets opposed both.
So now Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Moldovans, and Armenians suddenly became fascists? Idk, i feel this is a very dishonest take, but who knows what justification you have for this stance.
And yet Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved to swiftly reform or completely dismantle the system. Couldn’t it be that they thought the system to be outdated? You do realize that the main reason many grew tired of the Soviet way of doing things was because of Deng Xiaoping’s capitalist reforms putting pressure on the USSR to dissolve right?
So why haven’t they tried to reinstate the USSR?
I’m well into the second chapter
This still has whataboutist undertones. The USSR also crushed uprisings (Hungary, Prague Spring), supported brutal regimes (Afghanistan, East Germany), and committed mass killings (Holodomor and the Great Purge).
This entire comment is you speaking quite confidently about situations you evidently do not know about. My advice is to not speak on subjects you only think you know about regarding US geopolitical enemies.
Again, I cannot give an accurate assessment of each of their nationalist movements in a Lemmy comment chain. I could point you to the heroization of Nazi collaborater Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, as an example, but that itself requires investigation. It isn’t a dishonest stance, rather, I am telling you to do genuine research into these.
As for the Soviet Economy, I have already linked sources on why growth slowed towards the end and that it wasn’t outdated. There were contributing factors like planning by hand rather than computerization, and focusing much of the GDP on millitarization, but ultimately the economy was stronger and grew faster than the current Capitalist system. Further, Deng didn’t add “Capitalist reforms,” he pivoted to a Socialist Market Economy. That in and of itself is a huge topic.
The Russians haven’t re-instated Socialism because they are in a Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Socialism needs to be achieved via Revolution, and that has a lot of requirements, especially considering current NATO encirclement is a constant threat where even if a Revolution occured, the same thing that happened in 1917 would happen, mass invasion by Capitalist countries to stop Socialism in its tracks (14 countries invaded Russia in 1917). Technically Belarus has a Socialist Market Economy still, and is generally doing much better than its neighboring countries that went full on into Capitalism.
As for Blackshirts, the next 3 chapters are perhaps the most important for this conversation. It goes over “left-anticommunism” in the west, the benefits and drawbacks of the Soviet System, and what led to its collapse (in Parenti’s eyes). Honestly, if I were you I’d stop talking to people about the Soviets until you have finished the book, and taken the time to digest it, but if you have specific questions I can help.
The last chapters go over the devastation Capitalism brought to the USSR, which is also topical for this convo.
Back to “uprisings.” Again, this is why you really shouldn’t use topics you aren’t aware of as points in your argument. In Hungary and Prague, both “uprisings” were US-Backed, involved mass lynchings of Soviet officials before the Soviets sent in the millitary, and were led by genuine fascists. In Hungary, for example, they even let out hundreds of Nazis from prison to assist with the slaughter of Soviets, and the Peasantry helped the Millitary put it down. As for the “mass killings,” it isn’t accurate to call a famine a “mass killing” rather than a huge tragedy, and further the Purges were in the vast majority of cases simply expelling from the Party, actual punishment was usually imprisonment. Execution was relatively rare in comparison.
If you genuinely do not know enough about an event, please, just don’t speak on it.
Okay, i won’t speak on things i don’t know too well, i will however call out the blatant lies in your comment.
This is a lie! Deng explicitly introduced market reforms, privatization, and allowed foreign investment. If it wasn’t capitalism, why does China today have billionaires, stock markets, and private enterprise?
Another lie! The Stalinist purges killed millions. Denying this is blatant historical revisionism. Vasily Blokhin the chief executioner of the NKVD and one of the most prolific executioners in world history has more than 7,000 executions to his name. Are you denying this clear evidence? Also, don’t get me started on the massive number of graves that were discovered
No, it is not a lie. Socialism is a Mode of Production characterized by Public Ownership and Planning as primary in an economy. Markets are not Capitalism. If you recall from Politzer’s work, you can’t look at structures as disconnected from the rest of their context and judge them accurately. Economies aren’t 30% Socialist, 70% Capitalist, or anything like that. They can be 30% public, 70% private, but these factors are part of the same connected whole. The private interacts with the public at every step.
The United States is Capitalist because it is driven by Capital and the State supports that. The PRC is Socialist because it is driven by Public Ownership and planning, and markets support that. If you want yet another article, Domenico Losurdo’s Has China Turned to Capitalism? Reflections on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism is a good article on the subject. We can go in-depth about the PRC’s economy if you want to, and why it’s much better to categorize it as Socialist.
As for the Great Purge, I am not lying. My belief, based on archival evidence, is that Western historians often intentionally lie, such as Robert Conquest, that millions of people were killed, and that everyone purged was executed. The real character is that the vast majority were not killed, but simply expelled from the party, and of those sentenced to death, many were sent to the GULAGs for re-education and released later. This is backed up by archival evidence. The KGB’s own internal records day 700,000 were condemned to death, and we know that many of those in the Soviet justice system condemned to death were instead rehabilitated in GULAGs. Even if all 700,000 were killed, this isn’t millions, yet Robert Conquest reports 12 million killed.
I, very clearly, did not say that nobody was executed. Many were. However, those killed during the era of the Great Purge were often rapists (which was a crime sentenced to death at the time), murderers, and general spies and terrorists. The vast majority of those millions purged were not sentenced to death or executed.
That also doesn’t mean everyone punished was guilty either. I am not defending the excesses of the Great Purge, but explaining that the idea of the Great Purge that exists in your head is likely far and away different from the reality of the situation. I think you did me a disservice by misinterpreting my claims. Moreover, a lot of the Purges from the party were entirely necessary, as the somewhat small but notable Trotskyists and Bukharinists were directly working to sabotage the Socialist system with assassinations, factory espionage, and more. I can’t think of any situation where the correct answer would be to let that continue.
China itself refers to its system as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” indicating that they acknowledge capitalist mechanisms within their socialist framework. I didn’t say China is capitalist (although it is technically correct to say that at present China is state-capitalist with hopes of transitioning to full on socialism), I only said Deng introduced capitalist elements to offset economic downturn which, if i may remind you, resulted in the quadrupling of China’s GDP. Calling it market socialism is a matter of nomenclature alone.
You’re still making revisionist claims in your analysis of Soviet history, but i don’t even know if i have the strength to go on as it’s just back and forth.
SWCC introduced controlled markets, the point about Dialectics is that it isn’t accurate to call them “Capitalist elements.” China already considers itself Socialist, it hopes to transition to later stages of Socialist development. The claim you’re drawing from, that China plans to be a “developed Socialist country by 20XX” is from the standpoint of a country that considers itself Socialist already. We can talk more about SWCC if you want, and how a Socialist Market Economy doesn’t at all function as a Capitalist economy even if it has markets, but that’s not the main point here.
I really want to ask, what claim about the USSR is revisionist? That millions were counted as purged, but purges don’t mean execution? That the KGB’s internal documentation indicates 700,000 were condemned to death, not 12 million like Conquest states, and further that the Soviet justice system frequently didn’t actually execute, just rehabilitate? That there were real assassinations and reasons calling for the Great Purge, like Trotskyist factions working to sabotage factories?
I never once denied that many people were executed. This is undeniable fact, of course it is. However, this was not a case of a rogue state murdering 12 million innocent people, and portraying it as such is part of Western distortion. If you don’t want to continue, I’d suggest digging more into the subject than Wikipedia alone, there are many books on the subject based on archival evidence.
What makes a system capitalist if not markets, private ownership, and wage labor? Self-identification does not determine economic reality.
The revisionism I’m referring to is: Your claim that the Soviet justice system “frequently didn’t actually execute” those sentenced to death is false. Archival NKVD data shows that most of the 700,000 sentenced to death were executed.
Your claim that the purges were primarily about “Trotskyists". The Great Purge targeted high-ranking Party officials, innocent civilians, and the Red Army, NOT just saboteurs. E.g., Stalin purged 80% of his military leadership before WW2. Were all of them traitors?
If Soviet archives themselves acknowledge hundreds of thousands of executions, how is that a “Western lie"? If the KGB’s own documents contradict Stalinist apologists, why should we trust modern revisionists instead?