EPTTheres a point where being contrarian about the war and being supportive of what is happening in Ukraine. That point is blaming anyone but Putin for the war.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 260
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
Theres a point where being contrarian about the war and being supportive of what is happening in Ukraine. That point is blaming anyone but Putin for the war. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28707 Posts
On October 03 2022 06:04 plasmidghost wrote: Listening to Putin's speech on Friday was genuinely terrifying and put a lot of things in perspective for me. I burned a lot of goodwill with other leftists by supporting Ukraine and as the war went on, it was rather unnerving how many of them outright supported genocide. Friday, Putin outright said that if he wins, me and every other trans person that happens to be subject to him will suffer immensely. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many leftists openly support an imperialist fascist like Putin just because Russia used to be the Soviet Union. As much as I wish it wasn't true, it's been gone for 30 years and the fascists and capitalists have completely taken over. I hope that every Russian soldier that willingly signed up to fight or killed or destroyed in Ukraine meets a fate worse than death. a leftist supporting Putin is very mind boggling. He's been liked by parts of the far right because he's been an embodiment of some far right values, but my honest experience is that the Norwegians I know of who used to like both Trump and Putin are actually no longer fans of the latter - this invasion was too much. Now - I know of leftists whose opposition to NATO is so staunch that they see them as a co-culprit in all of this and they don't want further NATO-expansion even in light of Russia turning genocidal towards its neighbors. However, I know more leftists who changed their view on NATO because of this. I know many members of the 'socialist left party of Norway', a party that separated from our Labor party because of disagreement over NATO membership, who have done a quick 180 on this question since February. While I think historical opposition to NATO from a Norwegian pov (favoring a Swedish/Finnish approach) has had some merit to it (and Sweden/Finland joining NATO is also part of why this 'third way' approach of forming a common Scandinavian defense union has lost support) even though I myself have preferred NATO-membership. Many of the people in both of these camps have historically been strongly opposed to American led foreign policy and 'pax americana' - tending to have had their political awakening coincide either with Vietnam, with Latin American excursions, or with Iraq, depending on age. That said - virtually none of these people had any love for the Soviet Union. There might have been some appreciation of Cuba, some earlier but later retracted support for other communist regimes, lots of appreciation for the initial february revolution of 1917, but the Soviet Union was very, very far from any type of leftist utopia favored by Norwegian socialists and communists (even if there were supporters of it well into the 70s). Putin's Russia doesn't even pretend - it has the same authoritarianism but without any of the idealistic or progressive aspirations (communist countries don't have a good track record with homosexuality, but they often did a better job with gender equality than comparable capitalist ones). I hope you're confusing lack of support for NATO with support for Putin, because the concept of leftists actually supporting Putin gives me a serious headache. (I think it's fair to say that this conflict has, to some degree, forced us to choose a side, but I also think it's possible to side with Ukraine without wanting a US-dominated world.) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23469 Posts
On October 03 2022 06:56 Sermokala wrote: You have to do some sifting between those that support the invasion and those that are just against the war in general. But those that are either justifying the invasion or blame it on anyone but Russia are the ones that are supporting an Imperial fascist like Putin. Theres a point where being contrarian about the war and being supportive of what is happening in Ukraine. That point is blaming anyone but Putin for the war. There again it'd be responsible to sift through who is utilizing a dialectical materialist lens to garner a more holistic understanding of the conflict and who is adopting the reductive "good guy vs. bad guy" rendering in reverse. The latter again in my experience being more frequently assigned as a result of unscrupulous interpretation than not. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On October 03 2022 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm just curious what examples of their "outright supported genocide" or "openly support an imperialist fascist like Putin" would be? Feels like it would take some impressive mental gymnastics for anyone on the left to advocate the genocide of Ukrainians, it has been my experience that these instances are typically more reflective of unscrupulous interpretation. The old "so you support Saddam Hussein then!?" This is a horrible comparison. As a matter of fact, the positions of the people in these two situations are diametrically opposed. - the people who got to hear "so you support Saddam Hussein then!?" are the ones who were opposed to an invasion that eventually led to displacement of millions and the death of hundreds of thousands. - the people that get told they "openly support an imperialist fascist like Putin" are the ones who justify an invasion that has already displaced millions and resulted in the death of over a hundred thousand people. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On October 03 2022 07:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: a leftist supporting Putin is very mind boggling. He's been liked by parts of the far right because he's been an embodiment of some far right values, but my honest experience is that the Norwegians I know of who used to like both Trump and Putin are actually no longer fans of the latter - this invasion was too much. Now - I know of leftists whose opposition to NATO is so staunch that they see them as a co-culprit in all of this and they don't want further NATO-expansion even in light of Russia turning genocidal towards its neighbors. However, I know more leftists who changed their view on NATO because of this. I know many members of the 'socialist left party of Norway', a party that separated from our Labor party because of disagreement over NATO membership, who have done a quick 180 on this question since February. While I think historical opposition to NATO from a Norwegian pov (favoring a Swedish/Finnish approach) has had some merit to it (and Sweden/Finland joining NATO is also part of why this 'third way' approach of forming a common Scandinavian defense union has lost support) even though I myself have preferred NATO-membership. Many of the people in both of these camps have historically been strongly opposed to American led foreign policy and 'pax americana' - tending to have had their political awakening coincide either with Vietnam, with Latin American excursions, or with Iraq, depending on age. That said - virtually none of these people had any love for the Soviet Union. There might have been some appreciation of Cuba, some earlier but later retracted support for other communist regimes, lots of appreciation for the initial february revolution of 1917, but the Soviet Union was very, very far from any type of leftist utopia favored by Norwegian socialists and communists (even if there were supporters of it well into the 70s). Putin's Russia doesn't even pretend - it has the same authoritarianism but without any of the idealistic or progressive aspirations (communist countries don't have a good track record with homosexuality, but they often did a better job with gender equality than comparable capitalist ones). I hope you're confusing lack of support for NATO with support for Putin, because the concept of leftists actually supporting Putin gives me a serious headache. (I think it's fair to say that this conflict has, to some degree, forced us to choose a side, but I also think it's possible to side with Ukraine without wanting a US-dominated world.) I think a lot of my opinion on it comes down to the initial first few years with Lenin being, in my eyes, a true potential for good. The entire union went definitely bad after Stalin took over, but I have to wonder how the US would've treated the world had the Soviet Union not existed, and I don't believe it would've been good. But I don't know. Looking at the current situation with the invasion of Ukraine, or the attacks on Armenia by Azerbaijan, or the clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, I have to wonder if things would've been better had the Soviet Union never dissolved. But I don't know either. | ||
KwarK
United States43220 Posts
On October 03 2022 07:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: a leftist supporting Putin is very mind boggling. He's been liked by parts of the far right because he's been an embodiment of some far right values, but my honest experience is that the Norwegians I know of who used to like both Trump and Putin are actually no longer fans of the latter - this invasion was too much. Now - I know of leftists whose opposition to NATO is so staunch that they see them as a co-culprit in all of this and they don't want further NATO-expansion even in light of Russia turning genocidal towards its neighbors. However, I know more leftists who changed their view on NATO because of this. I know many members of the 'socialist left party of Norway', a party that separated from our Labor party because of disagreement over NATO membership, who have done a quick 180 on this question since February. While I think historical opposition to NATO from a Norwegian pov (favoring a Swedish/Finnish approach) has had some merit to it (and Sweden/Finland joining NATO is also part of why this 'third way' approach of forming a common Scandinavian defense union has lost support) even though I myself have preferred NATO-membership. Many of the people in both of these camps have historically been strongly opposed to American led foreign policy and 'pax americana' - tending to have had their political awakening coincide either with Vietnam, with Latin American excursions, or with Iraq, depending on age. That said - virtually none of these people had any love for the Soviet Union. There might have been some appreciation of Cuba, some earlier but later retracted support for other communist regimes, lots of appreciation for the initial february revolution of 1917, but the Soviet Union was very, very far from any type of leftist utopia favored by Norwegian socialists and communists (even if there were supporters of it well into the 70s). Putin's Russia doesn't even pretend - it has the same authoritarianism but without any of the idealistic or progressive aspirations (communist countries don't have a good track record with homosexuality, but they often did a better job with gender equality than comparable capitalist ones). I hope you're confusing lack of support for NATO with support for Putin, because the concept of leftists actually supporting Putin gives me a serious headache. (I think it's fair to say that this conflict has, to some degree, forced us to choose a side, but I also think it's possible to side with Ukraine without wanting a US-dominated world.) A lot of leftists view it in an anti-colonial anti-American hegemony way. You get support for the nominally leftist regimes in Central America, Africa, China etc. because they are seen as opposing global capitalism. They don't necessarily know much about the politics of these countries beyond who opposes them but anti-Americanism is seen as a form of leftist alliance. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28707 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17432 Posts
This is pretty massive if true. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On October 03 2022 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote: Not going to delve too deeply into pre-stalin Soviet Union, but even if you consider Lenin good (I'd have serious qualms with that claim - although I could be on board with 'he was better than what he replaced'), the Soviet union existed after him for 10 times as long as it existed with him, and it was mostly a total catastrophe for its citizens. Dislike for the US and capitalism us fine and warranted but it should not lead you down into a hole where the Soviet Union looks good. Technically, Lenin replaced a democratic Russian Republic with a communist dictatorship. He's responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths (so technically better than Stalin, but by no means a good person in any sense of the word) as part of the Red Terror, used slave labour extensively and had a policy of collective punishment of families. He was better than Stalin, but that's setting the bar very low. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On October 03 2022 08:08 Manit0u wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_V_g-zEOE0 This is pretty massive if true. Last time I checked in, it was like "holy shit, 20 km?", so this must be even cooler. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3249 Posts
On October 03 2022 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote: There again it'd be responsible to sift through who is utilizing a dialectical materialist lens to garner a more holistic understanding of the conflict and who is adopting the reductive "good guy vs. bad guy" rendering in reverse. The latter again in my experience being more frequently assigned as a result of unscrupulous interpretation than not. I'd be interested to hear the analysis from this dialectical materialist lens expanded on some, because it seems to me your analysis of the conflict so far has completely failed to illuminate the most basic, obvious questions (Is the invasion justified? Should we support it or not? Should interventions be made supporting one side or the other?). I understand the desire to resist nationalist/jingoist currents to provide dispassionate analysis, but if an artificial commitment to neutrality is preventing your analysis from addressing basic questions, it's not very useful analysis, is it? I've thought quite a bit about your last statement of perspective on the conflict a few weeks ago. I didn't get a chance to write a post about it at the time. For those who don't remember: + Show Spoiler [GH's perspective on the war] + On September 15 2022 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote: My perspective goes something like this: Russia didn't want war. Russia wanted to continue their political influence over Ukraine. Then Ukraine's (Russian friendly/more ambivalent) government was forcibly and illegally overthrown with US support (not the US's first rodeo). Since then we've seen a tug of war between the west and Russia over who will have political dominance in Ukraine with Ukrainians getting their lives and lands decimated in the process. The invasion certainly seemed to me to be an attempt to undo the consequences of the US backed overthrow with Russia inducing a rapid and more direct illegal overthrow of Ukraine's government. When that failed, it seems Putin's plan has been to make Ukrainians more miserable than they were under Yanukovich so they pine for life before the US supported illegal overthrowing of the government. As it stands Ukraine is wholly dependent on foreign aid to pay even its basic bills (like their social security program which was on its last legs before any of this), thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, and billions of dollars of infrastructure has been/will be destroyed. Ukraine is either going to end up a vassal of the west (feeding profits for companies like JP Morgan, that Zelenskyy's government wants charged with war crimes) because of unavoidable dependence on them for decades or more subservient to Russian interests than they were under Yanukovich. What I think is least likely is that Ukrainians end up less subservient to foreign interests than they were before 2014. They've been made into mercenaries fighting to ensure their own subjugation win or lose. There's a lot to talk about in that post, but I think the most obvious is what exactly you think a war is. The post kicks off with "Russia didn't want war, they just wanted [list of war aims]." That's what war is! Nobody wants war, but sometimes they have objectives they think they can only achieve with lethal force. Saying "they didn't want war, they just wanted to achieve their war aims" is essentially incoherent! Considering how central war (particularly US wars, particularly their unjustifiable cruelty) is to your worldview, I'd really like to believe your conception of it is more considered than that. Other assumptions that post seemed to make without really justifying them: that Russia (perhaps understandably) feels entitled to the sort of control over Ukraine they enjoyed under Yanukovich; that the regime was fundamentally "legal" and the Euromaidan revolution was fundamentally "illegal" in way that implies Russia is justified or understandably motivated to undo that change; that Euromaidan was fundamentally a US-backed movement, rather than a movement of the Ukrainian people; and that Ukraine receiving war aid necessarily implies subservience to or subjugation by the US or other Western powers. I think I disagree with all of those assumptions, but more frustrating is that they're not even propositions with supporting evidence; some are just stated, while others aren't even stated, but the post makes even less sense if we don't consider them at least implied. Maybe this would derail the thread too much (I'd also take a DM), but I'd love to hear why exactly you consider Euromaidan essentially an illegal US overthrow of a (presumably "legal") government. People protested in the streets en masse against a corrupt government even as it used lethal force to try to suppress opposition! Isn't that exactly the sort of political mobilization you'd like to see in, well, a lot of places, maybe even the US? I mean, isn't every revolution "illegal"? Are there not plenty of "illegal" revolutions (maybe even the Russian Revolution, back in 1917) that you would celebrate? Heck, I think the Russian Revolution even received support from the German government, but I doubt that would disqualify it from your praise. At the end of the day, a European imperial power is fighting a war of conquest because there's a group of people attempting to be independent, and they think they should instead be under their empire's control. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that people calling themselves "leftists" or "anti-imperialists" or "anti-colonialists" are supposed to oppose? If it was the French or British or Americans doing it, would you be saying "they didn't want war, they just wanted to continue their influence after their puppet government got overthrown"? Or would you be decrying the evils of fascist Western empires committing atrocities to expand their power? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
He is taking children and human beings into Russia to be taught as Russians and annexing land with sham elections. That is imperialism and genocide. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28707 Posts
On October 03 2022 08:19 maybenexttime wrote: Technically, Lenin replaced a democratic Russian Republic with a communist dictatorship. He's responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths (so technically better than Stalin, but by no means a good person in any sense of the word) as part of the Red Terror, used slave labour extensively and had a policy of collective punishment of families. He was better than Stalin, but that's setting the bar very low. This is correct. (I alluded to this in the earlier post where I mentioned the February revolution rather than the October one, as one that was supported.) But if you ignore that period (to be fair, didn't last long) and see him as a replacement of the Tsar regime instead I think it's possible to argue that he was preferable. This isn't supposed to be considered support of Lenin, but indictment of the Tsar regime. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6252 Posts
On October 03 2022 07:35 plasmidghost wrote: I think a lot of my opinion on it comes down to the initial first few years with Lenin being, in my eyes, a true potential for good. The entire union went definitely bad after Stalin took over, but I have to wonder how the US would've treated the world had the Soviet Union not existed, and I don't believe it would've been good. But I don't know. Looking at the current situation with the invasion of Ukraine, or the attacks on Armenia by Azerbaijan, or the clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, I have to wonder if things would've been better had the Soviet Union never dissolved. But I don't know either. Ask people who lived in the USSR and you'll have your answer. Like Drone said the USSR was a disaster for its people. You seem like someone with good intentions but you should reconsider the people you interact with if they're apologists for the USSR and Putin. You can be left without being a nutjob. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
My personal favorite is the constant decrying of the evil imperialist Soviet Union chopping up Poland alongside the Nazis that totally makes them same as Hitler in the eyes of the Polish people; when Poland itself made multiple landgrabs of its own during the interwar period and had a policy of forced 'Polonization' for its minorities that was by all accounts more oppressive than anything comparable done by Russians in the Soviet Union. Lithuanians in particular seem weirdly okay with the fact that Poland occupied key parts of Lithuania including their capital Vilnius following a sham referendum no better than the ones just carried out by Putin days ago, it's only the evil imperialist Soviet Union occupation that they're angry about, nevermind that a good third of their country's population would have grown up as Poles instead if not for that. And let's not forget Poland's role in the Sudeten crisis, where they openly supported Germany, made any notion of a Stalin-proposed Soviet-Czechoslovakia defense treaty an impossibility, and carried out another landgrab of their own when Czechoslovakia was being cut to pieces. But no, none of that matters; it's only the evil imperialist Soviet Union that we talk about, and their demonic oppression of poor, freedom-loving Polish people. Also, saying that USSR was a 'disaster' for its people is pretty weird. Disaster compared to what? Quality of life in USSR was undeniably better than it was in Tzarist Russia. Would it be better with other leaders / government types? Maybe, maybe not -- who the fuck knows. After the revolution, Russia was a backwater mess, riddled with debts and internal strife. Whatever government took charge, would have a massive mountain to climb out of that hole. During the Cold War era, Soviet Union was, for the most part, an okay place to live. The US was obviously much more prosperous, but I think people forget just how poor and undeveloped most of the world was during that time, and even the 'good' places had plenty of harsh downturns: look up Sweden in the 70s, for example. Economics aside, the reason many older people 'miss' Soviet Union is due to a very different mentality. There was less focus on work as a means to make money and more focus on meaning and contributing to the society, which is something that modern world could use. People love to talk about NKVD and KGB, the gulags, the lack of products, etc; often quoting Soviet-era jokes like that's evidence of the points they're making. The truth is people don't usually make jokes about things that are a true danger to themselves or their families. People joked about the KGB and the empty grocery store shelves because for the most part, that wasn't something that would ever seriously bother them or anyone they personally know. Soviet Union had plenty of flaws, but it was also a reasonably functioning society that had made a lot of positive contributions to the world. Let's not forget that many pro-working class movements internationally gained traction and concessions from their governments due to fear of communist uprisings in Western capitalist countries; the Soviets' massive contributions to sciences; or indeed their role in defeating Nazi Germany, a monster largely born out of inept diplomatic policies of the Western Allies. As it usually is, the truth isn't just black and white. In fact, I'm fairly certain that one of the biggest reasons even the younger, educated folks in Russia put up with Putin's bullshit is because of the absolutely ridiculous anti-Russian, anti-USSR rhetoric. His talk about the West being against Russia wouldn't sound particularly unhinged to actual Russian people, given the sort of shit people say about Russians / Soviet Union on a daily basis nowadays, or even before the war started. | ||
|
Mikau313
Netherlands230 Posts
given the sort of shit people say about Russians / Soviet Union on a daily basis nowadays, or even before the war started. Literally every Western country has the same shit said about them and their colonial past, yet none of them use it to justify invasion of neighbouring countries. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On October 03 2022 16:07 Salazarz wrote: Just about all the criticisms of Soviet Union I hear these days, on this site as well as places like reddit and even more 'serious' takes by journalists / academics usually completely ignore wider geopolitical context and focus on specific aspects of USSR that they deem 'bad', which is reductionist and frankly stupid. My personal favorite is the constant decrying of the evil imperialist Soviet Union chopping up Poland alongside the Nazis that totally makes them same as Hitler in the eyes of the Polish people; when Poland itself made multiple landgrabs of its own during the interwar period and had a policy of forced 'Polonization' for its minorities that was by all accounts more oppressive than anything comparable done by Russians in the Soviet Union. Lithuanians in particular seem weirdly okay with the fact that Poland occupied key parts of Lithuania including their capital Vilnius following a sham referendum no better than the ones just carried out by Putin days ago, it's only the evil imperialist Soviet Union occupation that they're angry about, nevermind that a good third of their country's population would have grown up as Poles instead if not for that. And let's not forget Poland's role in the Sudeten crisis, where they openly supported Germany, made any notion of a Stalin-proposed Soviet-Czechoslovakia defense treaty an impossibility, and carried out another landgrab of their own when Czechoslovakia was being cut to pieces. But no, none of that matters; it's only the evil imperialist Soviet Union that we talk about, and their demonic oppression of poor, freedom-loving Polish people. Also, saying that USSR was a 'disaster' for its people is pretty weird. Disaster compared to what? Quality of life in USSR was undeniably better than it was in Tzarist Russia. Would it be better with other leaders / government types? Maybe, maybe not -- who the fuck knows. After the revolution, Russia was a backwater mess, riddled with debts and internal strife. Whatever government took charge, would have a massive mountain to climb out of that hole. During the Cold War era, Soviet Union was, for the most part, an okay place to live. The US was obviously much more prosperous, but I think people forget just how poor and undeveloped most of the world was during that time, and even the 'good' places had plenty of harsh downturns: look up Sweden in the 70s, for example. Economics aside, the reason many older people 'miss' Soviet Union is due to a very different mentality. There was less focus on work as a means to make money and more focus on meaning and contributing to the society, which is something that modern world could use. People love to talk about NKVD and KGB, the gulags, the lack of products, etc; often quoting Soviet-era jokes like that's evidence of the points they're making. The truth is people don't usually make jokes about things that are a true danger to themselves or their families. People joked about the KGB and the empty grocery store shelves because for the most part, that wasn't something that would ever seriously bother them or anyone they personally know. Soviet Union had plenty of flaws, but it was also a reasonably functioning society that had made a lot of positive contributions to the world. Let's not forget that many pro-working class movements internationally gained traction and concessions from their governments due to fear of communist uprisings in Western capitalist countries; the Soviets' massive contributions to sciences; or indeed their role in defeating Nazi Germany, a monster largely born out of inept diplomatic policies of the Western Allies. As it usually is, the truth isn't just black and white. In fact, I'm fairly certain that one of the biggest reasons even the younger, educated folks in Russia put up with Putin's bullshit is because of the absolutely ridiculous anti-Russian, anti-USSR rhetoric. His talk about the West being against Russia wouldn't sound particularly unhinged to actual Russian people, given the sort of shit people say about Russians / Soviet Union on a daily basis nowadays, or even before the war started. That's a roundabout way of saying the Soviet Union was good if we ignore all the bad things about it. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63076570 In bad news: France, similar to Germany, is not sending as much aid to Ukraine as it could. I'm not convinced by the counter arguments. What's really stopping them? Are they worried that Ukraine might still fall in the event of nuclear warfare, and then the rest of Europe would be exposed? Because quite clearly through conventional warfare Russia is not going to win, so there must be much greater fears in play. Maybe I praised Macron too soon, or maybe he doesn't have as much influence as it seems. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63090644 https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-vladimir-putin-mobilization-military-war-ukraine-invasion-germany-france/ | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On October 03 2022 16:07 Salazarz wrote: Just about all the criticisms of Soviet Union I hear these days, on this site as well as places like reddit and even more 'serious' takes by journalists / academics usually completely ignore wider geopolitical context and focus on specific aspects of USSR that they deem 'bad', which is reductionist and frankly stupid. My personal favorite is the constant decrying of the evil imperialist Soviet Union chopping up Poland alongside the Nazis that totally makes them same as Hitler in the eyes of the Polish people; when Poland itself made multiple landgrabs of its own during the interwar period and had a policy of forced 'Polonization' for its minorities that was by all accounts more oppressive than anything comparable done by Russians in the Soviet Union. Lithuanians in particular seem weirdly okay with the fact that Poland occupied key parts of Lithuania including their capital Vilnius following a sham referendum no better than the ones just carried out by Putin days ago, it's only the evil imperialist Soviet Union occupation that they're angry about, nevermind that a good third of their country's population would have grown up as Poles instead if not for that. And let's not forget Poland's role in the Sudeten crisis, where they openly supported Germany, made any notion of a Stalin-proposed Soviet-Czechoslovakia defense treaty an impossibility, and carried out another landgrab of their own when Czechoslovakia was being cut to pieces. But no, none of that matters; it's only the evil imperialist Soviet Union that we talk about, and their demonic oppression of poor, freedom-loving Polish people. Also, saying that USSR was a 'disaster' for its people is pretty weird. Disaster compared to what? Quality of life in USSR was undeniably better than it was in Tzarist Russia. Would it be better with other leaders / government types? Maybe, maybe not -- who the fuck knows. After the revolution, Russia was a backwater mess, riddled with debts and internal strife. Whatever government took charge, would have a massive mountain to climb out of that hole. During the Cold War era, Soviet Union was, for the most part, an okay place to live. The US was obviously much more prosperous, but I think people forget just how poor and undeveloped most of the world was during that time, and even the 'good' places had plenty of harsh downturns: look up Sweden in the 70s, for example. Economics aside, the reason many older people 'miss' Soviet Union is due to a very different mentality. There was less focus on work as a means to make money and more focus on meaning and contributing to the society, which is something that modern world could use. People love to talk about NKVD and KGB, the gulags, the lack of products, etc; often quoting Soviet-era jokes like that's evidence of the points they're making. The truth is people don't usually make jokes about things that are a true danger to themselves or their families. People joked about the KGB and the empty grocery store shelves because for the most part, that wasn't something that would ever seriously bother them or anyone they personally know. Soviet Union had plenty of flaws, but it was also a reasonably functioning society that had made a lot of positive contributions to the world. Let's not forget that many pro-working class movements internationally gained traction and concessions from their governments due to fear of communist uprisings in Western capitalist countries; the Soviets' massive contributions to sciences; or indeed their role in defeating Nazi Germany, a monster largely born out of inept diplomatic policies of the Western Allies. As it usually is, the truth isn't just black and white. In fact, I'm fairly certain that one of the biggest reasons even the younger, educated folks in Russia put up with Putin's bullshit is because of the absolutely ridiculous anti-Russian, anti-USSR rhetoric. His talk about the West being against Russia wouldn't sound particularly unhinged to actual Russian people, given the sort of shit people say about Russians / Soviet Union on a daily basis nowadays, or even before the war started. TIL that not having universities teach in Ukrainian is as bad as murdering millions of people. You put a lot of effort into that rant, I'll give you that. | ||
| ||
