Alright, what would be thing that would change your mind? Iām just going to focus it down to Estonia so it there would be less vagueness over the baltics (because they are still 3 different countries with different historical backgrounds). What would it take for you to believe that Estonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willingly leave the union?
Clearly itās not the fact that on the precipice of WW2 Estonia wanted to be neutral, which also means not wanting to be in the soviet union.
Itās also clearly not the fact that post-collapse Estonia designated that period as a period of foreign occupation
Itās obviously also not the fact that Estonia was forcibly manipulated to join the Union in the first place.
Nor the fact that someone living in that country is telling you that the people living here didnāt want to live in the union.
How about the secret protocol of MRP where the Soviet Union clearly states Estonia will be in their sphere of influence. And thatās regardless of what Estonia thinks on the matter.
So really, what is the missing part of proof that would change your mind? Why do you believe the opposite in the first place?
Alright, what would be thing that would change your mind?
Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.
Why do you believe the opposite in the first place?
It depends what you mean by āthe oppositeā. I think you have misunderstood what Iām saying. Iām not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So āthe oppositeā is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didnāt and Iām not denying it. Iām saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.
I know that many people did not like the USSR. I know that the proportion of people who did not like the USSR was different in different SSRs. I know that many people suffered in the USSR, some for good reasons and some who didnāt deserve it. I know that the USSR made mistakes and that different SSRs made different mistakes. I know that the sum of errors made by the USSR led to itās dissolution.
More stories that people didnāt like the USSR is not a new argument, itās more evidence for an existing, common argument, which I have heard many times and dismissed. Youāre making it sound like you think Iāve never read that anti-Soviet narrative. But every single part of my education was anti-communist.
I started with the anti-communist history, documentaries, survey data, movies, novels, etc, and I found it all lacking in basic requirements of logic and rigour. The anti-communist narrative does not hold up to any of the standards applied to any other idea or subject. This fact should raise alarm bells for anyone who claims to think critically.
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. It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly. More stories about this or that SSR that wanted to leave but ācouldnātā, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If itās 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.
I hold that the USSR was still a success because itās achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the worldās second most powerful superpower in one generation, all without colonialism. Then they liberated the rest of Europe and Asia (supporting China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam) from brutal Nazis, fascists, and colonialists. 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.
Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the āadvanced civilisationsā were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didnāt 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.
So the question is not what would change my mind, because I already have a nuanced and balanced view. The question is what would change your mind?
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, didnāt do a single thing right? Because to me, insisting that 6 people and a survey taken at one particular time in one particular place as representative of the facts and experience of all those millions, across a wide geography and several decades isā¦ itās not rigorous or logical, Iāll say that much.
Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.
So thatās a roundabout way of saying āno, nothing will change my mindā. 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 āthe oppositeā. I think you have misunderstood what Iām saying. Iām not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So āthe oppositeā is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didnāt and Iām not denying it. Iām saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.
Here youāre twisting what I said to say nothing. The opposite of āEstonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willing leave itā is that āEstonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave itā. Youāre 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 isnāt bad?
It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly.
I know, some were shot on sight, others weāre 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 ācouldnātā, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If itās 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 thatās where my question was, why couldnāt they leave before. But youāre not interested in answering that because that doesnāt suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.
I hold that the USSR was still a success because itās achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the worldās 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 wouldnāt have survived the Nazi invasion if not for lend-lease program from America. In Khrushchev memoirs he mentions that Stalin himself said that USSR wouldnāt have won without the help from America. The USSR didnāt do this liberation on their own and they couldnāt 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 ānuanced and balanced viewā 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 didnāt lose to Nazi Germany. As is stands their actions in other parts of the world donāt invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.
Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the āadvanced civilisationsā were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didnāt 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, didnāt do a single thing right?
Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didnāt do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they werenāt.
But itās not like youāre going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that youāre going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.
So thatās a roundabout way of saying āno, nothing will change my mindā.
No, itās a direct way of saying that you wonāt change my mind. I didnāt wake up a Marxist one day after hitting my head or eating something spicy.
The opposite of āEstonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willing leave itā is that āEstonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave itā.
I donāt recall saying that āEstoniaā wanted to be in or out the Union. From the beginning, Iāve been saying that some people wanted in and some people wanted out. And Iāve been saying that their position is determined by their class position.
Thereās 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 isnāt bad?
You have severely misunderstood my argument. Thereās too much to unpack here for me to untangle.
doesnāt suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.
Iām 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.
Have you even been reading what I wrote? Or are you just picking all the bits that you donāt 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, Iām not so sure that you are a Nazi sympathiser. Now I think you just donāt know what youāre 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 didnāt say that you said these were bad things. I donāt recall you saying anything about these things at all and I canāt be bothered to scroll back up. I mentioned these things because you asked what would change my mind. And Iām 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 donāt invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.
This is entirely beside the point. Itās 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 canāt cry āwhataboutismā when they list the reasons for thinking X.
Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didnāt do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they werenāt.
I know you didnāt 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 weāre all wrong because we havenāt considered your tiny bit of evidence that some people didnāt 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 canāt cry ātwisting my wordsā in the same breath as claiming that I said āthe other SSRs were free and democraticā when I didnāt say it. It comes off as a bitā¦ disingenuous.
But itās not like youāre going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that youāre 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 wonāt change my mind. Iām 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.
No wonder anyone canāt get through to you when youāre going out of your way to not even address the point but address something that was never even said.
Alright, what would be thing that would change your mind? Iām just going to focus it down to Estonia so it there would be less vagueness over the baltics (because they are still 3 different countries with different historical backgrounds). What would it take for you to believe that Estonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willingly leave the union?
So really, what is the missing part of proof that would change your mind? Why do you believe the opposite in the first place?
Rigorous, Marxist research. Please do not take this as a request for you to show me anti-communist literature.
It depends what you mean by āthe oppositeā. I think you have misunderstood what Iām saying. Iām not claiming that everybody liked the USSR. So āthe oppositeā is not me accepting that some people disliked the USSR. I already know they didnāt and Iām not denying it. Iām saying their view must be put into context, treated to analysis, and understood as a class-based perspective.
I know that many people did not like the USSR. I know that the proportion of people who did not like the USSR was different in different SSRs. I know that many people suffered in the USSR, some for good reasons and some who didnāt deserve it. I know that the USSR made mistakes and that different SSRs made different mistakes. I know that the sum of errors made by the USSR led to itās dissolution.
More stories that people didnāt like the USSR is not a new argument, itās more evidence for an existing, common argument, which I have heard many times and dismissed. Youāre making it sound like you think Iāve never read that anti-Soviet narrative. But every single part of my education was anti-communist.
I started with the anti-communist history, documentaries, survey data, movies, novels, etc, and I found it all lacking in basic requirements of logic and rigour. The anti-communist narrative does not hold up to any of the standards applied to any other idea or subject. This fact should raise alarm bells for anyone who claims to think critically.
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. It suggests that not all dissidents were sent to Siberia it treated badly. More stories about this or that SSR that wanted to leave but ācouldnātā, suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. If itās 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.
I hold that the USSR was still a success because itās achievements are uncountable. Soviets turned the most backwards country in Europe into the worldās second most powerful superpower in one generation, all without colonialism. Then they liberated the rest of Europe and Asia (supporting China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam) from brutal Nazis, fascists, and colonialists. 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.
Nevermind near universal suffrage, education, housing, healthcare, employment, etc, at home. All at a time when the āadvanced civilisationsā were raping and looting the world to strengthen the west, while their domestic populations didnāt 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.
So the question is not what would change my mind, because I already have a nuanced and balanced view. The question is what would change your mind?
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, didnāt do a single thing right? Because to me, insisting that 6 people and a survey taken at one particular time in one particular place as representative of the facts and experience of all those millions, across a wide geography and several decades isā¦ itās not rigorous or logical, Iāll say that much.
So thatās a roundabout way of saying āno, nothing will change my mindā. 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.
Here youāre twisting what I said to say nothing. The opposite of āEstonia did not want to be in the union and couldnāt willing leave itā is that āEstonia wanted to be in the union and could willing leave itā. Youāre just going off on a tangent to not address the point.
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 isnāt bad?
I know, some were shot on sight, others weāre sent to jail to rot. The ones who lived had to keep their nose down to survive.
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 thatās where my question was, why couldnāt they leave before. But youāre not interested in answering that because that doesnāt suit the idyllic vision you have of the soviet union.
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.
With the significant help of the good old capitalist America. USSR probably wouldnāt have survived the Nazi invasion if not for lend-lease program from America. In Khrushchev memoirs he mentions that Stalin himself said that USSR wouldnāt have won without the help from America. The USSR didnāt do this liberation on their own and they couldnāt have done it without America.
I never said they were bad things. But Mr ānuanced and balanced viewā 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 didnāt lose to Nazi Germany. As is stands their actions in other parts of the world donāt invalidate how they oppressed the Baltic states.
Whataboutism.
Twisting my words again. Never did I say they didnāt do a single thing right. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the other SSRs were free and democratic, they werenāt.
But itās not like youāre going to change you mind anyway so feel free to live in your contradictions that youāre going to ignore so you could believe the lies you want to believe.
No, itās a direct way of saying that you wonāt change my mind. I didnāt wake up a Marxist one day after hitting my head or eating something spicy.
I donāt recall saying that āEstoniaā wanted to be in or out the Union. From the beginning, Iāve been saying that some people wanted in and some people wanted out. And Iāve been saying that their position is determined by their class position.
Thereās no going off on a tangent. Putting things into their political economic context is a basic element of Marxist analysis.
You have severely misunderstood my argument. Thereās too much to unpack here for me to untangle.
Are you for real? Is this really how you understand Nazi Germany? After what you said above, Iām not so sure that you are a Nazi sympathiser. Now I think you just donāt know what youāre talking about. Then again, Nazi sympathisers do like their horseshoe theories to whitewash and minimise the horrors of capitalism.
I didnāt say that you said these were bad things. I donāt recall you saying anything about these things at all and I canāt be bothered to scroll back up. I mentioned these things because you asked what would change my mind. And Iām telling you that with these positives on the record, nobody will ever convince me that the USSR was not a net benefit to humanity.
Please re-read what I said.
This is entirely beside the point. Itās you who keeps insisting on the issue. Did you forget that this all started with someone asking why communists are positive about the USSR?
If you ask someone a question about why they think X, you canāt cry āwhataboutismā when they list the reasons for thinking X.
I know you didnāt 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 weāre all wrong because we havenāt considered your tiny bit of evidence that some people didnāt 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 canāt cry ātwisting my wordsā in the same breath as claiming that I said āthe other SSRs were free and democraticā when I didnāt say it. It comes off as a bitā¦ disingenuous.
Well, I did tell you not to come back at me with anti-communism because you wonāt change my mind. Iām 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.
No wonder anyone canāt get through to you when youāre going out of your way to not even address the point but address something that was never even said.
š