this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
163 points (83.0% liked)

Memes

4028 readers
1 users here now

Good memes, bad memes, unite towards a united front.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.

So that's a roundabout way of saying "no, nothing will change my mind". Good to know and this will be the last time I will respond to you, so I will point out the stupidity of some of your statements.

It depends what you mean by ‘the opposite’. I think you have misunderstood what I’m saying. I’m not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So ‘the opposite’ is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didn’t and I’m not denying it. I’m saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.

Here you're twisting what I said to say nothing. The opposite of "Estonia did not want to be in the union and couldn't willing leave it" is that "Estonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave it". You're just going off on a tangent to not address the point.

More stories about people surviving and living normal lives in the USSR, even if they disliked the USSR, suggests the opposite of what you think it does.

Some people can also live a normal life under imperialistic sphere of the US, even if they dislike US. Does that mean it suggests the opposite of your understanding of the US, and by extension capitalism? That capitalism isn't bad?

It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly.

I know, some were shot on sight, others we're sent to jail to rot. The ones who lived had to keep their nose down to survive.

More stories about this or that SSR that wanted to leave but ‘couldn’t’, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If it’s proof of anything, given that we know that the USSR ended and that e.g. the Baltics are no longer in the USSR, it proves that SSRs could leave.

So you believe the SSRs could leave the union because the union stopped existing? By the time those countries could actually vote themselves out of the union the collapse was already inevitable. You acknowledge there was dissent and desire to leave and that's where my question was, why couldn't they leave before. But you're not interested in answering that because that doesn't suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.

I hold that the USSR was still a success because it’s achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the world’s second most powerful superpower in one generation, all without colonialism.

Guess Nazi Germany was also a success in your book. They turned a crumbling nation into something that was an existential threat even to the USSR, all in one generation, no colonialism and only at fraction of the size of the union.

Then they liberated the rest of Europe and Asia (supporting China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam) from brutal Nazis, fascists, and colonialists.

With the significant help of the good old capitalist America. USSR probably wouldn't have survived the Nazi invasion if not for lend-lease program from America. In Khrushchev memoirs he mentions that Stalin himself said that USSR wouldn't have won without the help from America. The USSR didn't do this liberation on their own and they couldn't have done it without America.

Then they helped liberate much of Africa and parts of Latin America from the same brutal, murderous, terror regimes of western imperialists. There is nothing you could ever say to me that will make me think these were bad things. And I have only scratched the surface of foreign policy.

I never said they were bad things. But Mr "nuanced and balanced view" here should be able to see how not everything the union did was good just as everything the US does is bad, as I just pointed out US is the reason the USSR didn't lose to Nazi Germany. As is stands their actions in other parts of the world don't invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.

Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the ‘advanced civilisations’ were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didn’t have anything close to universal education, housing, employment, healthcare, suffrage, etc. And did everything that people criticise the USSR for but on a much greater and more violent scale.

Whataboutism.

What would make you realise that implying that a Union of hundreds of million people, that defeated the Nazis, supported anti-colonial movements, and spanning 70 years, didn’t do a single thing right?

Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didn't do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they weren't.

But it's not like you're going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that you're going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So that’s a roundabout way of saying “no, nothing will change my mind”.

No, it's a direct way of saying that you won't change my mind. I didn't wake up a Marxist one day after hitting my head or eating something spicy.

The opposite of “Estonia did not want to be in the union and couldn’t willing leave it” is that “Estonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave it”.

I don't recall saying that 'Estonia' wanted to be in or out the Union. From the beginning, I've been saying that some people wanted in and some people wanted out. And I've been saying that their position is determined by their class position.

There's no going off on a tangent. Putting things into their political economic context is a basic element of Marxist analysis.

Some people can also live a normal life under imperialistic sphere of the US, even if they dislike US. Does that mean it suggests the opposite of your understanding of the US, and by extension capitalism? That capitalism isn’t bad?

You have severely misunderstood my argument. There's too much to unpack here for me to untangle.

doesn’t suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.

  1. I'm a Marxist, i.e. a scientific socialist, who rejects idealism. It is worse than useless for people who want socialism/communism to misdiagnose the problems of the USSR. I have zero interest in an idyllic fairy tale. Which is why I insist on logical and methodological rigour when forming my views about the USSR.
  2. Have you even been reading what I wrote? Or are you just picking all the bits that you don't like to make yourself angry?

Guess Nazi Germany was also a success in your book. They turned a crumbling nation into something that was an existential threat even to the USSR, all in one generation, no colonialism and only at fraction of the size of the union.

Are you for real? Is this really how you understand Nazi Germany? After what you said above, I'm not so sure that you are a Nazi sympathiser. Now I think you just don't know what you're talking about. Then again, Nazi sympathisers do like their horseshoe theories to whitewash and minimise the horrors of capitalism.

I never said they were bad things.

I didn't say that you said these were bad things. I don't recall you saying anything about these things at all and I can't be bothered to scroll back up. I mentioned these things because you asked what would change my mind. And I'm telling you that with these positives on the record, nobody will ever convince me that the USSR was not a net benefit to humanity.

to see how not everything the union did was good

Please re-read what I said.

As is stands their actions in other parts of the world don’t invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.

This is entirely beside the point. It's you who keeps insisting on the issue. Did you forget that this all started with someone asking why communists are positive about the USSR?

Whataboutism.

If you ask someone a question about why they think X, you can't cry 'whataboutism' when they list the reasons for thinking X.

Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didn’t do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they weren’t.

I know you didn't say this explicitly. But you did imply it. You came running in to a discussion about why people are positive about the USSR to say that we're all wrong because we haven't considered your tiny bit of evidence that some people didn't like the Union (which we have seen and considered before, albeit in a different format). Your framing implies that our reasons are insignificant in the face of six people and a survey that disagrees.

Further, you can't cry 'twisting my words' in the same breath as claiming that I said 'the other SSRs were free and democratic' when I didn't say it. It comes off as a bit… disingenuous.

But it’s not like you’re going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that you’re going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.

Well, I did tell you not to come back at me with anti-communism because you won't change my mind. I'm not trying to hide that. The real mystery is what made you think you could come into an explicitly communist space and turn people into liberals with an anecdote.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No wonder anyone can't get through to you when you're going out of your way to not even address the point but address something that was never even said.