this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
176 points (72.3% liked)
Memes
55418 readers
938 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it's your one and only comment in a one month old account.
Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
You're posting an article written during the height of the Sino-Soviet split, upholding the PRC which attacked Vietnam and upholded Pol Pot in Cambodia, sided with the US over the USSR, and took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
That was awfully fast reading for something I just posted a few minutes ago. Pretty sure you only skimmed over it instead of actually reading it. Otherwise you'd actually talk about the stuff written in it.
Their first part is about Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:
Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as "imperialism." They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You're upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot's Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.
You should send the apology form more often.
That would be a bit too egotistical, haha.