Authoritarian militaristic regime controlling the state? Check. In the soviet union and Russia, there is only one central power, there is no freedom or real democracy. If someone wants to change it, state will use all the power and military to stop it (like in Belarus - victim of a russian imperialism, or in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and so on).

In the Soviet Union, the working class was in control of the state, and brought with it genuine democracy (see Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan). The state indeed, wielded by the working classes, suppressed bourgeois and fascist counter-revolution. Belarus is not a "victim of Russian imperialism."

The modern Russian Federation is indeed run by right-wing nationalists, but Russia itself has a platry sum of finance capital, no colonies nor neocolonies, and is largely run on its own industrial production and export of energy and fuel.

None of this has anything to do with imperialism thus far.

Territorial expansion - Soviet union - of course, i.e. Ribbentrop Molotov pact, or the fact that Russia started the war in the Ukraine, attacking independent country to gain more power and rebuild soviet imperium.

Territorial expansion itself is not imperialism. In the case of the Soviet Union, territorial expansion was in the form of a multinational federation of socialist states. In Russia, Donetsk and Luhansk requested support from Russia and voted to join the Russian Federation in response to the far-right Banderite regime in Kiev ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine.

Neither of these are examples of imperialism thus far.

Economic exploitation - i.e. Holodomor. Or how soviet union exploited other east block countries.

An unintentional famine is not "economic exploitation," nor did the soviet union "exploit other eastern bloc countries." The RSFSR was the most developed in the USSR, but it did not do so via underdeveloping the other eastern bloc countries.

None of this is imperialism thus far.

Superiority ideology - you can see it on many propaganda posts, in the soviet times it was way better, bot nowadays russia also trying to convince people, that Russia is not a right wing authoritarian regime. In the same time Russia is attacking sexual minorities, and the west.

Marxism-Leninism is indeed correct, so spreading it was a good thing. Modern day Russia is more socially reactionary and indeed is run by right-wing nationalists, but this alone is not imperialism.

None of this is imperialism thus far.

Brics is as much imperialistic as NATO.

No it is not. BRICS is made up of global south countries breaking free of imperialism, NATO is made up of the world's imperialist powers and uses its hard power to maintain their plunder.

Is this enough?

This is nothing.

[+] Pajonk@szmer.info -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago

Dude, ask someone who lived in a east block. Countries, including soviet union, were controlled by a small group of a ruling class authoritarian idiots. That’s why soviet union failed. At the beginning, after the revolution, a lot of working class representatives were in charge, but after so many decades, new class emerged, ruling class. This was a big problem in the east block.

I have spoken to people that lived in the USSR, and they paint a very different picture. The picture they paint agrees with the sources I gave you already, that the soviet union was run by the working classes. There was no "new class" that emerged, but instead a buildup of state power to protect the gains of socialism against imperialism and sabateurs.

Also not true. How about Belarus, and other Russian satellites. Remember when during democratic election authoritarian Łukashenka regime almost lost, so they used russian army to rape and beat up protests?

Belarus is not a colony just because they trade with Russia. You need to provide evidence for your claims.

Especially when it comes to the countries that never wanted to be a part of soviet empire, like Poland? XD

There was no empire, for starters, and further the Polish People's Republic was progressive for its time, its fall a tragedy.

And once again, do you remember Ribentrop Molotov pact? Do you remember what was the goal?

I do, likely better than you.

The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

“Unintentional” XD

Correct. Quotations and an emoji aren't a point.

I don’t know how much do you know about east block, but you should know that countries like Poland, or Czech Republic and so on had give a lot of stuff for free to Soviet empire.

There was no empire. Trade existed, as did a socialist economy characterized by central planning, which also meant Poland and the Czech Republic, etc got a lot of "free stuff" in return.

And why are you skipping critical parts of my comments, that are proof of what I’m saying? Like Czechoslovaki 1968, if east block countries were part of the empire, and wanted to be there, why if country wanted to escape soviet empire, soviets would send army?

I'm not skipping any of it, but if you must have more information, Prague in 1968 was a fascist uprising. There were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.

Yup, and skipping the part about how russia is attacking other countries like Georgia and Ukraine. XD

War is not inherently imperialism, like how Russia is currently responding to requests for aid from Donetsk and Luhansk, and isn't trying to colonize Ukraine.

So, you big part of my comment, you didn’t give us any arguments. What’s wrong?

I ignored nothing. I suspect that you feel that because I didn't often name exactly that which I was responding to that it means that I ignored it, but in fact it's all there. It's you who is selectively ignoring what I say to further your anti-communist agenda.