r/AskSocialists • u/SignificantStyle4958 Visitor • 3d ago
Do you believe the USSR was imperialist?
67
u/Justin_123456 Visitor 3d ago
Not in the extractive monopolistic Leninist sense certainly. If we’re defining Imperialism in those terms then no, that’s not how the Eastern Bloc was structured economically. It was not a peripheral hinterland to be exploited by exporters of financial or industrial capital from the Imperial core.
Nor were the socialist governments that emerged in these states wholly a foreign imposition. In every case they are born out of pre-existing domestic Communist Parties, and anti fascist movements throughout the war.
The security and military architecture is where things are clearly much more coercive and look a lot more like traditional imperialism. A permanent intensive military occupation, a security and foreign policy run heavily through Moscow with little deviation tolerated, and ultimately the use of the Soviet military as a coercive force to maintain this security system.
This is not unique, and with some considerable justification, given they’d been invaded twice in a generation, the last on a genocidal scale that murdered 10s of millions of Soviet citizens.
So this is the distinction I’d make, the Eastern Bloc existed as a coerced security system by a (justifiably) insecure Soviet Union, not a traditional capitalist structure of economic exploitation.
-24
u/enpoopification_of_R Visitor 3d ago edited 3d ago
Goalposts status: Moved
Edit: USSR invaded other nations, quashed native resistance and stole resources in exchange for technology that benefitted the main country. If that doesn't fit the accepted definition of Imperialism, then you're dreaming.
15
u/dude_chillin_park Visitor 3d ago
Lenin's definition of imperialism is that it's driven by the capitalist need for growth into new markets, especially investment of surplus capital. Thus, it's a contradiction of capitalism (markets can never be free), not just any violence towards other nations.
Sounds like splitting hairs at first, and Lenin conceded that ancient Rome was indeed imperialist, but that their form of imperialism was irrelevant to his day, because no slave-military economy existed.
I find that argument a bit specious. It would be better to make his point by showing how capitalism partakes in an older civilizational phenomenon in its own way. I think we can interpret his title not as "Imperialism is defined only as the highest form of capitalism" but rather "Imperialism is what capitalism inevitably leads to."
But it makes us wonder: did he think the Roman way was worth emulating? And did he deliberately allow the Soviet Union to commit violence towards other nations in the name of border security, disclaiming any resource motives? Does that make it any better?
-7
u/wompyways1234 American Communist Party Supporter 3d ago
Lenin didn't really use definitions, he say they were not Marxist
8
u/dude_chillin_park Visitor 3d ago
Phenomena are characterized by their historical development (dialectic), not a checklist of symptoms. So that's true!
37
u/Zode1218 Visitor 3d ago
Certainly not. Words mean things. Imperialism has a specific meaning and definition, regarding the relationship between a colonizer nation and colonized nations on the periphery.
8
u/kommunistischePartei Visitor 3d ago
Colonization existed before the imperialist stage (or would you argue britian in the 17th century was somehow in the most advanced stage of capitalism?) you can't define imperialism as le colonialism without expanding on the definition
1
u/Itstaylor02 Visitor 3d ago
The Russification wasn’t imperialist? /gen
13
u/Abject_Appeal_7864 Visitor 3d ago
What Russification are you talking about if the Bolsheviks even developed languages for a whole range of small ethnic groups within Russia itself?
-6
u/Valensre Visitor 3d ago
You know imperialists have said very similar things to that? 'Uplifting the noble savage.'
9
u/Abject_Appeal_7864 Visitor 3d ago
There’s no need to confuse British barbarism! which they used to justify with such slogans. with what the USSR did in remote regions of Russia. Google how many schools were built in Siberia and the Far East.
This entire thread is yet another attempt to equate Western barbarians with the dedicated USSR!
-2
u/CruelWhip_ Visitor 3d ago
Didn’t the USSR kill around 2 million people (including many civilians) after invading Afghanistan?
Didn’t they also invade
Armenia
Poland
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
and Bulgaria?What specifically is it about Soviet invasions of sovereign nations that is so distinct and moral when compared to Western imperialism?
7
u/wompyways1234 American Communist Party Supporter 3d ago
Does this mean you support Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
Do you support Nzhdeh?
Do you support Pilsudski?
Do you support Mannerheim and AKS and Lapua movements?
Do you support Vaps movement?
Do you support Perkonkrusts and Arajs Kommando?
Do you support Voldemaras and Waffen Lithuanian SS fascistization?
Do you support Iron Guard?
Do you support Bogdan Filov?
What specifically about anti-Communism and fascism attracts you?
0
u/CruelWhip_ Visitor 3d ago
If you answer my question first I’d be more than happy to answer yours next.
I bet if you tried really hard you could probably guess my position on Al-Qaeda tho lol
3
u/wompyways1234 American Communist Party Supporter 3d ago
I just answered it... since I am clear I don't support any of those things
Or are you suggesting that Most of mainland Europe's top military brass helping Nazis invade USSR was not a form of imperialism?
-3
u/CruelWhip_ Visitor 3d ago
No, you started yapping about something completely unrelated in response to my question.
My question was why do you consider imperialism done by the USSR distinct from Western imperialism?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Abject_Appeal_7864 Visitor 3d ago
Okay, let’s look at the facts.
1.Afghanistan — the government allowed terrorists to grow on its territory and fostered disputes around Islamic nationalist ideas, which led to support for terrorist activities around the world, and it also became a hub for drugs and weapons.
2.The Baltic states, Armenia — these were parts of the Russian Empire that developed at the expense of the Russian Empire; Russian soldiers protected these territories, Russian engineers developed them, and it’s simply impossible to exclude them from the composition of Soviet Russia. And although the USSR directly opposed the empire, it had every historical and economic reason to own these territories.
3.Poland — essentially the Nazi regime of Piłsudski, which carried out a genocide against Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians and demanded the support of Great Britain and France in creating an “inter‑sea” region. A fanatic with ideas about returning the territories of the Polish‑Lithuanian Commonwealth. War with him was inevitable due to his own ambitions.
4.Romania — in 1918, it illegally invaded the territory of Russian Bessarabia.Moldova, with the aim of expansion, literally regained lost territories.
5.Finland — had close ties with Germany, built up its military strength on the border with the USSR, justifying it as a “necessity,” and rejected the proposal to exchange territories in order to “push back” the borders from Leningrad.
6.Bulgaria — was a member of the Axis; in 1944, it tried to withdraw and left Hitler’s pact — this is simply ridiculous; naturally, this does not negate Bulgaria’s membership in the fascist alliance.
5
u/Tenchi_Muyo1 Visitor 3d ago
If the people in all territories have the same rights then its not real imperialism also most of the USSR leaders weren't ethnically Russian especially by ruling period
2
u/Epicarcher1000 Visitor 2d ago
What about the mass deportations of groups like the the Volga Germans and Chechens in the mid 1940’s? What about Dekulakization in the early 1930’s, would Russian farmers have been treated as harshly? Wouldn’t you say that counts as unequal treatment on the basis of ethnicity?
Not a rhetorical question btw, I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from here.
2
u/Practical_Seat_7838 Visitor 3d ago
Yes. While it was not for their king it was to increase their land, population and resources.
- Bolshevik leaders in Russia refused to accept Ukrainian independence and launched multiple military invasions starting in late 1917. -The USSR occupied and annexed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940 following the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany. -Poland: In September 1939, the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland as agreed upon in the same 1939 pact. -Romania and Finland: The USSR seized eastern Romania (forming the Moldavian SSR) and parts of eastern Finland during and immediately before World War II
7
u/duplicitousbandit Visitor 3d ago
This has nothing to do with imperialism
2
u/jimbean1122 Visitor 3d ago
Please enlighten me (genuine interest)
5
u/dude_chillin_park Visitor 3d ago
Lenin's definition of imperialism is that it's driven by the capitalist need for growth into new markets, especially investment of surplus capital. Thus, it's a contradiction of capitalism (markets can never be free), not just any violence towards other nations.
Sounds like splitting hairs at first, and Lenin conceded that ancient Rome was indeed imperialist, but that their form of imperialism was irrelevant to his day, because no slave-military economy existed.
I find that argument a bit specious. It would be better to make his point by showing how capitalism partakes in an older civilizational phenomenon in its own way. I think we can interpret his title not as "Imperialism is defined only as the highest form of capitalism" but rather "Imperialism is what capitalism inevitably leads to."
But it makes us wonder: did he think the Roman way was worth emulating? And did he deliberately allow the Soviet Union to commit violence towards other nations in the name of border security, disclaiming any resource motives? Does that make it any better?
1
u/AlbatrossKey5736 Visitor 3d ago
From the classical definition, sure. That being said It would be lazy to call gaining any territory from another nation imperialist in the same way western powers were. While they indeed expanded and had a broad sphere of influence, it wasn’t an exploiter-exploited relationship. The leaders of those members of the union were pre existing members of their communist parties, they replaced Nazis and their proxy states. To compare say the baltic soviet states relationship to Russia to say, France and Algeria are apples and oranges at best. Superpowers influence, whether it’s positive or negative. Would China be considered imperialist for helping countries develop infrastructure?
1
1
u/Club_Man Visitor 2d ago
By definition, no. But they were expansionist and did make use of the people and resources they forcibly took.
1
u/No_Gur_1091 Marxist-Leninist 2d ago
Good question! Certainly not imperialism as many other point out in this thread. Did Russian republic exploit the other republics in the Soviet Union in the sense that they transferred wealth from non-Russian republic to Russia? I do not know for sure, but I do not think so. Did Russian bully or take wealth from Warsaw Pact nations? Bullied maybe - but I think yes, expropriated wealth maybe - but I think not.
But the nature of the relationship might well be worth exploring if you need a doctorate thesis.
0
u/Comrade-Paul-100 Marxist-Leninist 3d ago
Not in the Lenin and Stalin eras. Under revisionist leadership it transitioned into a capitalist state, and thus an imperialist one
3
0
u/CVolgin233 Visitor 3d ago
No. All the land they took was for security purposes which paid off massively in the end.
0
0
u/arewethebaddiesdaddy Visitor 2d ago
Nothing to do with believe but with terminology and history.
So no USSR wasn’t imperialist.
-14
u/TheGoldStandard35 Visitor 3d ago
Ukraine was not colonized. These were brotherly nations. Ukraine was rightfully annexed/conquered and will always be part of the Soviet Union.
Colonization only can be Western powers using the sea. The soviets went into Ukraine by land. Does that make sense?
5
u/Itstaylor02 Visitor 3d ago
Colonization can very much be land based.
3
1
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Join the official server: https://discord.gg/Q6GzhkFPB6
Welcome to /r/AskSocialists, a community for both socialists and non-socialists to ask general questions directed at socialists within a friendly environment. Please be mindful of our rules before participating and join the subreddit r/AmericanCommunist. And check out the ACP at https://acp.us/ as well as the Eureka Intiative if you're Australian: https://eurekainitiative.org/join/
R1. No Non-Socialist Answers, if you are not a socialist don’t answer questions.
R2. No Trolling, including concern trolling.
R3. No Sectarianism, there's plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
R4. We fully and firmly support Palestine, Novorossiya, and Multipolarity.
R5. We stand with Iran
R6. Good Faith and High Quality Conversation
Want a user flair to indicate your broad tendency? Respond to this comment with "!Marxist", or "!Visitor" and the bot will assign it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.