87
We are here
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
87 points (91.4% liked)
Socialism
6735 readers
70 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Okay what countries were under USSR colonialism?
Every Iron Curtain country that is not Russia Proper, duh! /s
of course they were did you like not witness the terror of Stalin's gigantic spoon?
Stalin had 2 million scientists design it and then of course as Stalin does best, he executed them.... with his spoon..
Tankies pretend otherwise, but according to experts he also had a giant straw that he used to drink everyone's smoothies
What's the difference between colonialism and what the USSR did in East Germany and Afghanistan?
Fucking unbelievable that you'd just leave out the fact that Germany was under literal Nazi rule. Unironically a Nazi sympathiser... East Germany thrived under USSR just so you know.
There was no unequal exchange. Which is what Western Imperial powers do to countries that can't fight back.
Are you calling me a Nazi sympathiser?
Yes. Because you are one.
There's no need to hurl insults. I think we should end the conversation between us here. I wish you the best of luck in life though 🖖
it's insulting to be called what you are? but okay do what liberals do best and run away from any confrontation not in your favour.
🤣
Colonialism/neocolonialism/imperialism involves setting up a system of international plunder. The USSR did not do that.
I would say it's a little more complicated than that. Imo imperialism has to entail more than just a colonialist money grab. If we don't acknowledge things like ethnic hierarchy and expansionism then there isn't really a good term to describe the expansions of countries like Germany or japan during and before ww2. The same goes for the empirical expansion of the past.
I especially don't think west Germany would be an example of colonialism or imperialism, but I think you could argue with some degrees of success that imperialism happened in places like Kazakhstan during Soviet rule.
It's more complicated, but for someone trying to find out why the soviet union was different from the entirely imperialist west, it's more than sufficient.
So what was the USSR doing in those places?
The same as it was doing by helping national liberation movements in Vietnam, Cuba, Algeria, and more: trying to spread socialism and weaken imperialism, which is what was holding the USSR in siege.
Didn't those counties welcomed help from the USSR and the countries I mentioned not. What your saying just sounds like a different flavor of "spreading democracy" to me.
Germany was governed by Nazis prior to the establishment of the GDR. In both countries, existing communist organizing existed, and like with other countries the USSR aided them. The key difference between the USSR spreading socialism and the US Empire "spreading democracy" is that the USSR really did spread socialism, while the US Empire instead spread death and destruction to plunder these countries.
The USSR spread socialism by force though, did the not? Weather your spreading democracy or socialism, using tanks and violence against an occupied people seems bad to me.
Also, what about Afghanistan?
Spreading good things is good, spreading bad things under the guise of spreading good things is bad. The USSR said they were spreading socialism and actually did so, the US Empire claims it spreads democracy but actually spreads genocide and violence, in order to establish imperialist relations.
Spreading anything by taking and maintaining control over a territory and its people is by definition, colonialism, is it not.
The soviets intervened at the request of factions in Afghanistan that had already taken power, though had not solidified it. They did not establish a colony nor expropriate wealth.
Just so I'm clear, are you saying a majority of the Afghan people wanted the Soviets in Afghanistan? Because that's not how I understand the situation being.
Also, was my definition of colonialism wrong?
The legally and internationally recognized government of Afghanistan requested the Soviets for help many times until they decided to help them out. Literally google it.
I think the dude is quite literally a descendant of Nazis considering his other post.
Sounds like at least a nazi sympathizer yeah but in case anyone else is reading it might help them learn more about the topic, which is very complicated ofc but definitely not "USSR bad"
That's not what I asked.
The legitimate government of Afghanistan requested support. Afghanistan had many factions and infighting, but the legitimate government specifically requested support, which the soviets responded to.
That's not what I asked though. Did the majority of the Afghan people want the Soviets to intervene? Its my understanding that most Afghans didn't want the Soviets there, given how they overthrew the government a few years after the Soviets left.
Was my definition of colonialism wrong?
The majority of Afghans did not want any one thing, it was highly factional. The government that invited the soviets in was a revolutionary government itself in the first place, from the winning faction at the time. Do you think the majority of Afghans wanted civil war? Without a clear majority, you have to focus on what's actually good and legitimate.
Your definition wasn't necessarily wrong outright, just not at all applicable to the soviets in Afghanistan. Your definition is severely lacking in the fact that colonialism is extractionary and set up for that purpose, for example.
okay you Nazi, you should go back to your Reddit home
Afghanistan was invaded by western powers multiple times and USSR actually respected Afghanistan and formed diplomatic relations. But of course we can't have that so the US Empire through CIA funded terrorists to overthrow the government back in the 70s.
As usual it is your fucking projection that sees the USSR doing what your favourite western empire does.
Read about literacy rates, poverty and life expectancy for starters. “Building hospitals and schools” is the answer to “so what was the ussr doing in those countries” lmao get better propaganda. The prop I choose to follow is atleast backed by LOTS of history.
I'm not following propaganda, I lived it. My family left the Eastern block looking for a better life. I was born in West Germany myself, my mother told me the reason for that was that she had a terrible time giving birth to my older brother back home.
Hearing stories of life under Soviet control from all my family contradicts post I see here glorifying the USSR. I don't understand why this contradiction exists, so I'm trying to ask people why they came to the conclusion that the USSR was good. And in particular here how occupying countries against their will is a good thing?
omfg no wonder you sympathise with nazis
So you did not actually "live it"
They legitimately elected Afghan government asked the USSR to help in putting down a wahhabist revolt. The US unsurprisingly armed and funded the wahabbist women-hating reactionaries, just as they do locally with their evangelical movement.
So the majority of the Afghan people welcomed the Soviets into their country? If that's true why was the Afghan government overthrown a few years after the Soviets left?
holy fuck Dessalines literally wrote what happened with the Afghan government and you still repeatedly hyper-focus on this question. You've been answered multiple times and yet you ignore everything