I didn’t know socialists were GDP-obsessed neoliberals here, socialism is good because it outpaces capitalism in GDP growth? How nice
As a matter of fact socialists are concerned with economic output, but not GDP. If you bothered to open a book, you’d know that the USSR did have a macroeconomic variable that guided some of its policy regarding growth of production, but it was not based off total economic output, only of agriculture and industry. It was Net Material Product. Industrial output wasn’t important because number go up, it was important because it allowed the USSR to become the nation manufacturing most tractors by the late 30s, and it allowed the manufacturing of the rifles, tanks, planes, munitions and artillery that enabled the defeat of Nazism.
And five years before that, Stalin was collaborating with the Nazis
You probably mean two years before that, in 1939, when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact happened, but you don’t really care about what happened, you’re just replicating anticommunist propaganda because that’s your preconceived view. If you care to read a bit on Molotov Ribbentrop, I suggest you to read a previous comment I wrote about it. Suffice it to say that Molotov is the surname of the foreign affairs commissar that was put in place that very year after 10 years of Maxim Litvinov being the foreign affairs representative, whom if you really care to read about the topic, will know staunchly argued in favour of a collective assault on Germany by France, Britain and the USSR, honouring the mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia together with France as an alternative to the Munich Agreements, and led the USSR to being the only country in Europe offering help to republicans and anarchists in Spain fighting fascism 3 years earlier in the Spanish civil war which happened on the opposite corner of the continent. Europe would rather see the USSR destroyed by Nazism and that’s why they rejected every attempt of a mutual defense agreement, even the one where Stalin offered to send one million soldiers to France in exchange for a mutual defense agreement against Nazism, which the French refused. If you still, after learning that, believe that the Soviets “collaborated with Nazism”, you simply have an anticommunist agenda, because that statement represents the opposite of what really happened in the 1930s Europe.
And at the same Stalin was deporting millions as part of his policy of russification
Millions were deported, but there was no policy of Russification. The only racist deportation events that took place were those of the Koreans and the Crimean Tatars, both horrible mistakes of racist policy that we should criticize, but let’s remind ourselves this is the 1930s, in the US black people couldn’t sit next to whites in the bus. Stalin’s position in the party in 1917 was commissar of nationalities, because he had written an important essay on the problem of how to achieve the preservation of nationalities while at the same time being international solidarity communists.
The USSR was amazingly progressive in terms of diversity and respect of nationalities for its time, which is why each republic had the right to determine its own official language (see Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Estonian, etc.), most books and newspapers in those republic were printed in the official language, people had a right to an education in their own language, and while Russian was encouraged as a língua franca, it was not generally imposed instead of smaller local languages. For example, Mari language in the Republic of Mari El was taught in Mari El schools all the way to the 90s, when schools stopped teaching in Mari and started teaching in Russian. If you look at the number of Estonian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Georgian or Armenian speakers over time you will find that at least it’s stable, with most of those languages growing over time. You can compare that with for example Occitan language in southern France, which in the 1920s had 1.5mn speakers and now barely has 100k. That’s what successful policy of Frenchification looks like, yet I don’t think I’ve seen you once complain about Occitan people.
Do you apologize for all the other Allied Powers war crimes during WW2 as well?
Please go through your comment history and tell me how many comments you have making it a point to talk about western power war crimes not as a tool to shit on the Soviet Union, but to actually criticise them.
Socialism is when the government does stuff
Socialism is famously when you get almost total land redistribution among peasants in collective farms, yes, I don’t even see your point here.
Industrial output wasn’t important because number go up, it was important because it allowed the USSR to become the nation manufacturing most tractors by the late 30s, and it allowed the manufacturing of the rifles, tanks, planes, munitions and artillery that enabled the defeat of Nazism.
Critical support to FDR and the AFL and their joint venture of industrial policy to massively increase the United States industrial base to defeat the nazis?
If you still, after learning that, believe that the Soviets “collaborated with Nazism”, you simply have an anticommunist agenda, because that statement represents the opposite of what really happened in the 1930s Europe.
They literally worked together to carve up Poland and signed a Mutual Defense Pact with each other while the USSR supplied the Nazi regime with raw materials as part of their trade agreements. Everything else you’ve talked about is just Realpolitik.
The USSR was amazingly progressive in terms of diversity and respect of nationalities for its time, which is why each republic had the right to determine its own official language (see Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Estonian, etc.), most books and newspapers in those republic were printed in the official language, people had a right to an education in their own language, and while Russian was encouraged as a língua franca, it was not generally imposed instead of smaller local languages.
I don’t disagree. Lenin was right about The National Question and the Soviet policy of Korenizatsiia (a theory of Stalins creation) was good. I will give you that, BUT Stalin reversed all of this with his mass deporations and genocide of Ukranians with the cultivation of the Soviet-Russian National Identity culminating in the inter-imperialist literally termed “Great Patriotic War”!
Please go through your comment history and tell me how many comments you have making it a point to talk about western power war crimes not as a tool to shit on the Soviet Union, but to actually criticise them.
4/15 of my comments are literally about criticizing a western powers crimes (although, not for WW2)!
Socialism is famously when you get almost total land redistribution among peasants in collective farms, yes, I don’t even see your point here.
Land reform is a petty-bourgeoisie demand culminating in the recreation of the capitalist social relation and the destruction of the Peasant class. Many capitalist countries have undergone the same transformation, just without the level of state interference and control the Soviet Union had. Just because the state manages the farms does not mean it is not capitalism as the fundamental mechanism of capital accumulation remains.
As a matter of fact socialists are concerned with economic output, but not GDP. If you bothered to open a book, you’d know that the USSR did have a macroeconomic variable that guided some of its policy regarding growth of production, but it was not based off total economic output, only of agriculture and industry. It was Net Material Product. Industrial output wasn’t important because number go up, it was important because it allowed the USSR to become the nation manufacturing most tractors by the late 30s, and it allowed the manufacturing of the rifles, tanks, planes, munitions and artillery that enabled the defeat of Nazism.
You probably mean two years before that, in 1939, when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact happened, but you don’t really care about what happened, you’re just replicating anticommunist propaganda because that’s your preconceived view. If you care to read a bit on Molotov Ribbentrop, I suggest you to read a previous comment I wrote about it. Suffice it to say that Molotov is the surname of the foreign affairs commissar that was put in place that very year after 10 years of Maxim Litvinov being the foreign affairs representative, whom if you really care to read about the topic, will know staunchly argued in favour of a collective assault on Germany by France, Britain and the USSR, honouring the mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia together with France as an alternative to the Munich Agreements, and led the USSR to being the only country in Europe offering help to republicans and anarchists in Spain fighting fascism 3 years earlier in the Spanish civil war which happened on the opposite corner of the continent. Europe would rather see the USSR destroyed by Nazism and that’s why they rejected every attempt of a mutual defense agreement, even the one where Stalin offered to send one million soldiers to France in exchange for a mutual defense agreement against Nazism, which the French refused. If you still, after learning that, believe that the Soviets “collaborated with Nazism”, you simply have an anticommunist agenda, because that statement represents the opposite of what really happened in the 1930s Europe.
Millions were deported, but there was no policy of Russification. The only racist deportation events that took place were those of the Koreans and the Crimean Tatars, both horrible mistakes of racist policy that we should criticize, but let’s remind ourselves this is the 1930s, in the US black people couldn’t sit next to whites in the bus. Stalin’s position in the party in 1917 was commissar of nationalities, because he had written an important essay on the problem of how to achieve the preservation of nationalities while at the same time being international solidarity communists.
The USSR was amazingly progressive in terms of diversity and respect of nationalities for its time, which is why each republic had the right to determine its own official language (see Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Estonian, etc.), most books and newspapers in those republic were printed in the official language, people had a right to an education in their own language, and while Russian was encouraged as a língua franca, it was not generally imposed instead of smaller local languages. For example, Mari language in the Republic of Mari El was taught in Mari El schools all the way to the 90s, when schools stopped teaching in Mari and started teaching in Russian. If you look at the number of Estonian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Georgian or Armenian speakers over time you will find that at least it’s stable, with most of those languages growing over time. You can compare that with for example Occitan language in southern France, which in the 1920s had 1.5mn speakers and now barely has 100k. That’s what successful policy of Frenchification looks like, yet I don’t think I’ve seen you once complain about Occitan people.
Please go through your comment history and tell me how many comments you have making it a point to talk about western power war crimes not as a tool to shit on the Soviet Union, but to actually criticise them.
Socialism is famously when you get almost total land redistribution among peasants in collective farms, yes, I don’t even see your point here.
Critical support to FDR and the AFL and their joint venture of industrial policy to massively increase the United States industrial base to defeat the nazis?
They literally worked together to carve up Poland and signed a Mutual Defense Pact with each other while the USSR supplied the Nazi regime with raw materials as part of their trade agreements. Everything else you’ve talked about is just Realpolitik.
I don’t disagree. Lenin was right about The National Question and the Soviet policy of Korenizatsiia (a theory of Stalins creation) was good. I will give you that, BUT Stalin reversed all of this with his mass deporations and genocide of Ukranians with the cultivation of the Soviet-Russian National Identity culminating in the inter-imperialist literally termed “Great Patriotic War”!
4/15 of my comments are literally about criticizing a western powers crimes (although, not for WW2)!
Land reform is a petty-bourgeoisie demand culminating in the recreation of the capitalist social relation and the destruction of the Peasant class. Many capitalist countries have undergone the same transformation, just without the level of state interference and control the Soviet Union had. Just because the state manages the farms does not mean it is not capitalism as the fundamental mechanism of capital accumulation remains.