Take a deep breath. As someone who's been in your shoes, this may not click right away.
Every single thing you've ever heard, learned, watched, or read about another country that was ever an enemy of the united states has been some version of an exaggeration or a lie. You live in the most intense propaganda machine that has ever been created. You live in the most intense surveillance state that's ever been created. You live in the biggest, richest empire that has ever been created.
The Soviet Empire directly occupied every constituent "Republic" as colonies, as well as occupied the Warsaw Pact countries as satellite vassals, and used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations in the Warpac. They denied the people any say in government, subverted unions into agents of the state instead of advocates for the workers, and systematically crushed any domestic political dissent using secret police.
As to whether I'm okay with consistently applying that? Sure. The last time the US fought a military conflict in order to annex a nation into empire was 1902. The Soviets did it consistently throughout their empire's existence.
Much of what you're claiming is undermined by the fact that the vast majority of Soviet people voted to keep the USSR. How could that have happened if people had no say in the government, and if the SSRs were just colonies? It's also undermined by facts like the early USSR letting some former Russian vassals become independent (e.g., Finland), successive Soviet constitutions granting more and more power to SSRs and national groups, and the steady rise in living conditions under the USSR/the sharp decline in living conditions after its dissolution.
And if you're serious about applying those same standards to every country, you'd see the U.S. as one of the most evil countries in the world. Our treatment of black Americans and American Indians was literally a model for the Nazis, and eclipses the scale and severity of even the most fevered anti-communist propaganda. We've fought wars of aggression all over the Global South. We've strangled popular anti-colonial movements in their crib and kept them down by backing murderous dictators. We illegally monitor as much of our citizens' communications as possible, have extrajudicially assassinated opposition leaders, have attempted to blackmail opposition leaders into killing themselves, violently repress even peaceful left-wing protests (while providing police escorts for Klan rallies and Proud Boys), hell, the Chicago PD was running a black site torture operation.
But I'm guessing you don't take that part seriously, otherwise you'd have questioned whether such an evil country -- that's militantly opposed every communist movement since before the USSR even existed -- is a reliable source on the shortcomings of communist states.
the proposed Union Treaty wasn't a continuation of the USSR any more than the EU is analogous to the Roman Empire, even if we close our eyes and pretend that the vote didn't have issues and wasn't boycotted by six "republics"
I knew you'd fly into whataboutism, that's why I mentioned invading another country for territorial conquest, so you can just shove the dishonest reeeee'ing where the sun doesn't shine
I don't need US government sources to know that murderous dictators are evil
Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?
That was the question; it's quite clearly referring to preserving the USSR. Comparing that to the difference between the Romans and the EU is disingenuous and you know it.
And you noticed six SSRs boycotted it! But I thought the USSR "used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations"? Which is it? Was dissent tolerated or not? Or, as in almost every country, were some types of dissent tolerated (local officials protesting national decisions) while other types were not (violent opposition to the state backed by hostile foreign governments)?
whataboutism
So you flat-out lied when you said you held all countries to the same standards. Holding all countries to the same standards involves discussing other countries to place actions in context (incidentally, this is a huge part of what passes for international law). It's not just shutting off your brain and screeching "whataboutism!" when someone asks you to acknowledge some things are bad even when your team does them.
reeeee'ing
Take this disgusting garbage back to and shit in your hat
Remind me during the cold war, which countries were on the side of pro independence anti colonial movements in Africa, and which countries were pro colonisation and pro apartheid? I'll think you'll find that more often than not, the USSR was on the side of anti colonial independence movements, and that the US and Western Europe were on the side of the pro colonial forces.
Even if the USSR only supported anti colonial movements out of pure self interest and cynicism, it's a hell of a lot better than supporting colonialism and neocolonialism like the USA and Western Europe did back then during the cold war.
TONS of it. In fact, given that a tankie is by definition someone who is in favor of enforcing a system of equality by utilising oppression (the term stems from when the USSR sent tanks to stop Yugoslavia from establishing a more progressive form of communism than that of Moscow), I'd say that tankies have a 100% idiot overlap.
I'm not saying all leftist are tankies (I'm a leftist) but what I am saying is that all tankies claim to be leftist while simultaneously supporting fascist and their imperialism.
I mean, a lot of "leftists" are pro Russia...
Pro-Soviet (no longer exist) ≠ pro modern Russia
Against continued war in Ukraine ≠ pro Russia
How does one end the war in Ukraine without Ukrainians having to acquiesce?
if you don't want ukraine to defend itself, you're giving putin exactly what he wants
Okay. But that's worse. You do know that's worse, right?
pro-socialism is worse than pro-fascism?
What is worse, a brutal authoritarian empire which tries to occupy Eastern Europe and Central Asia or one that actually does it?
Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin
Libs will never forgive the Soviets for saving eastern Europe from fascism lol
Take a deep breath. As someone who's been in your shoes, this may not click right away.
Every single thing you've ever heard, learned, watched, or read about another country that was ever an enemy of the united states has been some version of an exaggeration or a lie. You live in the most intense propaganda machine that has ever been created. You live in the most intense surveillance state that's ever been created. You live in the biggest, richest empire that has ever been created.
The Soviet Empire directly occupied every constituent "Republic" as colonies, as well as occupied the Warsaw Pact countries as satellite vassals, and used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations in the Warpac. They denied the people any say in government, subverted unions into agents of the state instead of advocates for the workers, and systematically crushed any domestic political dissent using secret police.
As to whether I'm okay with consistently applying that? Sure. The last time the US fought a military conflict in order to annex a nation into empire was 1902. The Soviets did it consistently throughout their empire's existence.
Much of what you're claiming is undermined by the fact that the vast majority of Soviet people voted to keep the USSR. How could that have happened if people had no say in the government, and if the SSRs were just colonies? It's also undermined by facts like the early USSR letting some former Russian vassals become independent (e.g., Finland), successive Soviet constitutions granting more and more power to SSRs and national groups, and the steady rise in living conditions under the USSR/the sharp decline in living conditions after its dissolution.
And if you're serious about applying those same standards to every country, you'd see the U.S. as one of the most evil countries in the world. Our treatment of black Americans and American Indians was literally a model for the Nazis, and eclipses the scale and severity of even the most fevered anti-communist propaganda. We've fought wars of aggression all over the Global South. We've strangled popular anti-colonial movements in their crib and kept them down by backing murderous dictators. We illegally monitor as much of our citizens' communications as possible, have extrajudicially assassinated opposition leaders, have attempted to blackmail opposition leaders into killing themselves, violently repress even peaceful left-wing protests (while providing police escorts for Klan rallies and Proud Boys), hell, the Chicago PD was running a black site torture operation.
But I'm guessing you don't take that part seriously, otherwise you'd have questioned whether such an evil country -- that's militantly opposed every communist movement since before the USSR even existed -- is a reliable source on the shortcomings of communist states.
the proposed Union Treaty wasn't a continuation of the USSR any more than the EU is analogous to the Roman Empire, even if we close our eyes and pretend that the vote didn't have issues and wasn't boycotted by six "republics"
I knew you'd fly into whataboutism, that's why I mentioned invading another country for territorial conquest, so you can just shove the dishonest reeeee'ing where the sun doesn't shine
I don't need US government sources to know that murderous dictators are evil
That was the question; it's quite clearly referring to preserving the USSR. Comparing that to the difference between the Romans and the EU is disingenuous and you know it.
And you noticed six SSRs boycotted it! But I thought the USSR "used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations"? Which is it? Was dissent tolerated or not? Or, as in almost every country, were some types of dissent tolerated (local officials protesting national decisions) while other types were not (violent opposition to the state backed by hostile foreign governments)?
So you flat-out lied when you said you held all countries to the same standards. Holding all countries to the same standards involves discussing other countries to place actions in context (incidentally, this is a huge part of what passes for international law). It's not just shutting off your brain and screeching "whataboutism!" when someone asks you to acknowledge some things are bad even when your team does them.
Take this disgusting garbage back to and shit in your hat
Ok fash whatever you say
Looks like you never left reddit in the first place
Na, you're still the nazi here
The Soviets liberated the death camps, nothing else really matters
This is what you call "intelligence agencies in a country I dislike"
cointelpro, mkultra, etc. etc.
Hell, just look at undercover cops and wiretaps.
Yikes
Go away Hexbear propagandist.
Holy shit EPIC le reference, i tip my fedora to you kind sir
It is?
Remind me during the cold war, which countries were on the side of pro independence anti colonial movements in Africa, and which countries were pro colonisation and pro apartheid? I'll think you'll find that more often than not, the USSR was on the side of anti colonial independence movements, and that the US and Western Europe were on the side of the pro colonial forces.
Even if the USSR only supported anti colonial movements out of pure self interest and cynicism, it's a hell of a lot better than supporting colonialism and neocolonialism like the USA and Western Europe did back then during the cold war.
Westerners have never forgiven the soviet union for saving them from fascism.
How? The USSR was the greatest point in history for all it's member states.
Which is why they all voted to stay in the moment they got the right to vote on it. Right?
77% to 22%, so… yeah. Not all of them, but a large majority.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum
Only the stupid ones.
@awwwyissss @Nerorero, I have nothing against Russian people, but a lot against certain Russian people
Yeah, the Kremlin gets the blame because they've forcefully consolidated decision-making power.
sovietunion/=russia
True, but some tankies refuse to believe that. They're literally pretending that Christofascist dictator Putin is a good communist 🤦😂
those are not tankies, those are idiots
There's a lot of overlap there, though.
TONS of it. In fact, given that a tankie is by definition someone who is in favor of enforcing a system of equality by utilising oppression (the term stems from when the USSR sent tanks to stop Yugoslavia from establishing a more progressive form of communism than that of Moscow), I'd say that tankies have a 100% idiot overlap.
no one is doing that.
The history of the Soviet Union is not great BTW
Also tankies do in general support Russia
I'm not saying all leftist are tankies (I'm a leftist) but what I am saying is that all tankies claim to be leftist while simultaneously supporting fascist and their imperialism.