Countries weren’t controlled by the USSR, they were a member state of the USSR and had input on democratic central planning and decisions. Please feel free to provide documentation if you feel that my worldview is incorrect.
Modern Russia and the USSR are two entirely different issues.
So why didn’t they? Clearly they never wanted to be a part of the union because prior to WW2 the foreign policy of those countries was neutrality. They created the Baltic entente and at end the of 1938 all three countries passed neutrality laws, Here’s the Estonian law. Furthermore after the union collapse all three countries designated the soviet era as an era of foreign occupation. Which part of of history gives you the indication that they actually wanted to be in the union?
Well, why didn’t they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR? And the people and the leaders who got what they wanted when they left:
Now have the power to be the dominant voice, and
Continue to say what they used to say now that they had power?
You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US, soYou probably know that capitalist states are run by a minority of wealthy people. It’s the same in post-Soviet capitalist states, right? (Like Russia, which we agree is a capitalist hellhole like every other capitalist state.)
If you’re still with me, could it be that a minority of liberals who complained about ‘conditions’ in the USSR are the same minority of liberals who today praise capitalism and criticise/slander the USSR?
Edit: realised I was talking to a different person.
Well, why didn’t they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR?
Are you open to the possibility that the USSR weren’t the good guys and didn’t allow those countries to leave? Because the rest of what you’re saying is on the premise that the USSR had to have been the good guys.
You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US
Maybe the other guy said that? I haven’t said that.
I just realised I was talking to two people and edited my comment.
My other points still stand. You’ve proved my point: there isn’t a ‘right’ answer, there’s only, like always, a class-based answer. If you believe the ruling class you reach one conclusion. If not, you reach a different conclusion.
It’s up to you which side you find more authoritative. For me, I’m skeptical of every word that leaves the mouths or pens of people who keep the working class oppressed and living in shit conditions.
You could always ask the people who lived there during that era, which is what I’ve done. I live in one of those countries. I know how my parents and grandparents lived during the soviet era. I know how my wifes parents and grandparents lived. I’ve had discussions about the union with people who actually lived in the union. My opinion isn’t some “choose which class answer you like”, it’s based on what people actually went through during that period. If you want to believe whatever you’ve read on the internet go ahead, but the truth from the actual proletariats (because none of them were capitalists, otherwise I’d not be talking to you as my grandparents or parents would be in Siberia, probably dead) is far from what you people here want to believe. None of them had anything good to say about the union. None of them wanted the union and once they were in the union at no point (until the very end) did they have an option to not be in the union.
While I believe that people had differing opinions (they always do), I find it hard to accept that your anecdotal evidence speaks for all of the Baltic states populations that lived under the USSR.
By reducing everyone’s arguments against you to, “you just read what you did on the internet, I talked to real people therefore my argument is more valid”, the stance that you’re trying to take is not rooted in good faith.
Perhaps being able to cite surveys or census data, or at least some form of statistic, would add some foundation to your argument.
If you talk to certain people in my country, they’ll tell that neoliberalism has been a success because it lifted their standard of living. It doesn’t make what they say generally true.
Lucky for you, your loved ones survived the shock therapy implemented from the 90s onwards. Then do a survey of the people who didn’t survive. Or who had to leave. Or who were trafficked. Or who were bombed by NATO. Or whose shipyards and factories were asset stripped. Then speak to the people who lived under the Tsar or the Nazis or whoever else preceded the Soviets. Then find some people in Ukraine and Russia, who were comrades until the 90s, and ask them what it’s been like in the slow, violent aftermath of letting the capitalists back in.
because none of them were capitalists, otherwise I’d not be talking to you as my grandparents or parents would be in Siberia, probably dead
Except if that followed logically, then who was it who took the post-Soviet states into capitalism? Not to mention that the fact that they survived leaves open the possibility that if they were ‘capitalists’ through that time, that ‘capitalists’ might not have probably died in Siberia.
Look, I’m not saying the USSR was perfect. I’m not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. I’m saying you need to understand that whether it’s explicit or subconscious, you are doing a class analysis by virtue of living in a class society. Most of your information is shaped by the ruling class, which controls the production and distribution of knowledge. It’s the same for the people you’re going to talk to. You can’t escape it. The ruling ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. Individual anecdotes based on an insignificant sample size of respondents doesn’t change anything.
Yes, Lemmygrad is explicitly communist.
Countries weren’t controlled by the USSR, they were a member state of the USSR and had input on democratic central planning and decisions. Please feel free to provide documentation if you feel that my worldview is incorrect.
Modern Russia and the USSR are two entirely different issues.
So countries that were forcibly integrated, like the Baltic states, weren’t controlled? Then why couldn’t they leave the union?
They could. Article 17 of the 1936 Constitution (can be found on https://marxists.org > English > History > Soviet Union > Soviet Government) explicitly allowed every Republic to secede from the U.S.S.R.
So why didn’t they? Clearly they never wanted to be a part of the union because prior to WW2 the foreign policy of those countries was neutrality. They created the Baltic entente and at end the of 1938 all three countries passed neutrality laws, Here’s the Estonian law. Furthermore after the union collapse all three countries designated the soviet era as an era of foreign occupation. Which part of of history gives you the indication that they actually wanted to be in the union?
Well, why didn’t they leave? You now know that they could have left. So why did they choose to stay until the whole bloc collapsed? Are you open to the possibility that the people and the leaders of the time wanted to be part of the USSR? And the people and the leaders who got what they wanted when they left:
You said that you would be considered a socialist in the US, soYou probably know that capitalist states are run by a minority of wealthy people. It’s the same in post-Soviet capitalist states, right? (Like Russia, whichwe agreeis a capitalist hellhole like every other capitalist state.)If you’re still with me, could it be that a minority of liberals who complained about ‘conditions’ in the USSR are the same minority of liberals who today praise capitalism and criticise/slander the USSR?
Edit: realised I was talking to a different person.
Are you open to the possibility that the USSR weren’t the good guys and didn’t allow those countries to leave? Because the rest of what you’re saying is on the premise that the USSR had to have been the good guys.
Maybe the other guy said that? I haven’t said that.
I just realised I was talking to two people and edited my comment.
My other points still stand. You’ve proved my point: there isn’t a ‘right’ answer, there’s only, like always, a class-based answer. If you believe the ruling class you reach one conclusion. If not, you reach a different conclusion.
It’s up to you which side you find more authoritative. For me, I’m skeptical of every word that leaves the mouths or pens of people who keep the working class oppressed and living in shit conditions.
You could always ask the people who lived there during that era, which is what I’ve done. I live in one of those countries. I know how my parents and grandparents lived during the soviet era. I know how my wifes parents and grandparents lived. I’ve had discussions about the union with people who actually lived in the union. My opinion isn’t some “choose which class answer you like”, it’s based on what people actually went through during that period. If you want to believe whatever you’ve read on the internet go ahead, but the truth from the actual proletariats (because none of them were capitalists, otherwise I’d not be talking to you as my grandparents or parents would be in Siberia, probably dead) is far from what you people here want to believe. None of them had anything good to say about the union. None of them wanted the union and once they were in the union at no point (until the very end) did they have an option to not be in the union.
While I believe that people had differing opinions (they always do), I find it hard to accept that your anecdotal evidence speaks for all of the Baltic states populations that lived under the USSR.
By reducing everyone’s arguments against you to, “you just read what you did on the internet, I talked to real people therefore my argument is more valid”, the stance that you’re trying to take is not rooted in good faith.
Perhaps being able to cite surveys or census data, or at least some form of statistic, would add some foundation to your argument.
If you talk to certain people in my country, they’ll tell that neoliberalism has been a success because it lifted their standard of living. It doesn’t make what they say generally true.
Lucky for you, your loved ones survived the shock therapy implemented from the 90s onwards. Then do a survey of the people who didn’t survive. Or who had to leave. Or who were trafficked. Or who were bombed by NATO. Or whose shipyards and factories were asset stripped. Then speak to the people who lived under the Tsar or the Nazis or whoever else preceded the Soviets. Then find some people in Ukraine and Russia, who were comrades until the 90s, and ask them what it’s been like in the slow, violent aftermath of letting the capitalists back in.
Except if that followed logically, then who was it who took the post-Soviet states into capitalism? Not to mention that the fact that they survived leaves open the possibility that if they were ‘capitalists’ through that time, that ‘capitalists’ might not have probably died in Siberia.
Look, I’m not saying the USSR was perfect. I’m not saying I have a perfect understanding of the USSR. I’m saying you need to understand that whether it’s explicit or subconscious, you are doing a class analysis by virtue of living in a class society. Most of your information is shaped by the ruling class, which controls the production and distribution of knowledge. It’s the same for the people you’re going to talk to. You can’t escape it. The ruling ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. Individual anecdotes based on an insignificant sample size of respondents doesn’t change anything.