• Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. 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”

        2. 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

        3. I don’t need US government sources to know that murderous dictators are evil

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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 reddit-logo and shit in your hat