this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
161 points (69.9% liked)
Memes
54215 readers
657 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USSR was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the Russian Federation inhereted no colonies of the tsarist Russian Empire because of this. There was no "soviet imperialism."
Why werent surnames in Soviet states derussified then?
"Russification" was stopped by the soviets, and there was a two-fold effort to promote an internationalist "soviet" identity while preserving national identities. Derussifying surnames was not a priority, but numerous gains were made for cultural preservation.
You're also confusing culture with imperialism, which is a form of international exploitation on an economic basis typically reinforced by methods like couping, installing compradors, etc.
No it wasn't, otherwise Tajiks wouldn't still have -ov and -ova at the end of their surnames. Also see link to article written in the late 70s by an actual anti-imperialist socialist, explaining why the Soviet Union totally was imperialist. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
As explained earlier, your supposed "anti-imperialist socialists" were upholding Pol Pot in Cambodia against Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR, while the USSR was supporting Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba, Algeria, and more. The groups siding with China in the Sino-Soviet split took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
Hey, why did you leave this comment out when running to MeanwhileOnGrad? Didn't want to admit that you think Pol Pot defenders are "real socialists?"
Absolutely hilarious!
Ignore the violent repression of eastern Europe, the subjugation of native populations in the south and east, the proxy wars and the sphere of influence and international power politics.
I'm having a hard time right now and you genuinely made me laugh, thank you!
If your entire understanding of the USSR came from decades of propaganda from its geopolitical enemies maybe you should look into how much of what you were taught was either interpreted in the worst way possible if not entirely made up. A lot of anti communist myths were started by the literal nazis but the west ran with them because they hate communism more than they hate mass genocide.
Thats not saying much tbf. They don't hate mass genocide at all.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It aided national liberation movements in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Having influence internationally is not imperialism.
Interesting, it's your one and only comment in a one month old account.
Yeah, right. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/iwk-ussr.htm
You're posting an article written during the height of the Sino-Soviet split, upholding the PRC which attacked Vietnam and upholded Pol Pot in Cambodia, sided with the US over the USSR, and took all manner of incorrect lines as an overcorrection from Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR. In the same time period, the USSR was supporting revolution in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa and more.
The USSR did not colonize nor plunder internationally, instead it focused on internationalism and mutual development. It was in no way fascist either, public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Syzmanski is a good book going over the political economy of the later soviet union.
That was awfully fast reading for something I just posted a few minutes ago. Pretty sure you only skimmed over it instead of actually reading it. Otherwise you'd actually talk about the stuff written in it.
Their first part is about Khrushchev's revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:
Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as "imperialism." They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You're upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot's Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.
You should send the apology form more often.
That would be a bit too egotistical, haha.