Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Euro Asian State by 2015

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Feb 2012, 23:30
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 10 Feb 2012, 23:37
So Putin had discussed the EuroAsian union by 2015 which will include: Russia, Belarussia,is a proposed economic and political union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and other Eurasian countries, in particular the post-Soviet states.


Could this be a come back from the USSR? Are they trying to isolate themself from the western markets and american dollar currency?

Would love to hear your thoughts!!!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 11 Feb 2012, 01:13
Hajimemashite, Philipdzh! Welcome to the forum. I moved your topic to Red Square because it wasn't a current event.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Feb 2012, 01:26
This has been brought up here before and no it's not. It's simply Russia trying to re-orient itself as an imperialist power. Having indebted "allies" is key to setting up any prolonged imperial system. Plus you have to remember that the people who own Russia hated the USSR and would fight very hard against its reconstitution.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 12 Feb 2012, 15:43
Sure it is Russia is trying to re-orient itself back as an imperialist power just as it was when it was the soviet union. Hate to say it but the soviet union was far bigger of an imperialist power then say america. the cccp steam rolled over every nation it could get it's hands on.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Feb 2012, 15:47
Lol no.
Where are you getting this from?
Source please,for the USSR being imperialist?
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 13 Feb 2012, 02:18
Loz wrote:
Lol no.
Where are you getting this from?
Source please,for the USSR being imperialist?


Life, sure dude it takes 2 secs to do search on Soviet empire or soviet Imperialism. If you don't wanna call it Imperialism and call it something else thats fine but the results are the same. You can't call America an Imperialist without calling bs on not saying the same of the cccp.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Feb 2012, 02:23
What is imperialism,according to you then?
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 13 Feb 2012, 02:35
Loz wrote:
What is imperialism,according to you then?


the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Feb 2012, 02:47
Quote:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;

According to this Albania is the biggest imperialist in the Balkans.Also pretty much all (definitely all Western ones) nations fall into this category,except maybe Haiti,Panama or Mongolia.

The USSR did not go on bombing other countries which wouldn't want to let them suck of the resources (see Libya etc).
Imperialism (is) the highest stage of capitalism. (Lenin).
Read that work text if you want to know more.
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 13 Feb 2012, 02:55
Loz wrote:
The USSR did not go on bombing other countries which wouldn't want to let them suck of the resources (see Libya etc).


Oh really so the winter war never happened, the invasion of afghanistan never happened, Prague Spring never happened, Hungarian Revolution of 1956 never happened. Sorry but the soviet union was just as imperialist as everybody else welcome to the real world.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Feb 2012, 03:01
So it's a question of how many "invasions" the USSR did that defines how imperialist it supposedly was? Hell,you even said that it was more imperialist than America.
In that case compare it with the number of invasions (and the death-toll on civilians) the US pulled off in the last 80 years and come back.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 13 Feb 2012, 03:08
Quote:
Life, sure dude it takes 2 secs to do search on Soviet empire or soviet Imperialism.


I also hope that you know that it takes 2 "secs" to "do search" on articles that say that Hitler was a socialist, the a UFO crashed in Roswell, or that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are secret Communists. Don't just believe anything you read on the internet; use logic and reasoning.

Quote:
the invasion of afghanistan never happened


There was no "Invasion of Afghanistan". The legitimate government asked the USSR for help containing reactionary bandits that intended to plunge Afghanistan into a new dark age.

Quote:
Hungarian Revolution of 1956 never happened.


Those fascist reactionaries got exactly what they deserved.

Quote:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas;


Image


This is the real and Marxist definition of Imperialism:

Marxists.org wrote:
An advanced stage of capitalism, attained by some nations in the 20th-century.

The epoch of imperialism opens when the expansion of colonialism has covered the globe and no new colonies can be acquired by the great powers except by taking them from each other, and the concentration of capital has grown to a point where finance capital becomes dominant over industrial capital. Lenin enumerated the following five features characteristic of the epoch of imperialism:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
[Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.]

"The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the "geniuses" of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators." (p. 206-207)

The surplus capital of these corporations, which arose from the exploitation of Labour, is exported to less developed countries where capital is more scarce, the price of land lower, wages lower, and raw materials cheaper; all resulting in a widening of profit margins. Capitalists need to export capital because in the most developed countries capitalism has become "overripe", the working class consciousness too advanced for heavy exploitation (i.e. huge profit margins), and while finance capital has a breeding ground for growth, productive capital (computer and clothing factories, etc) can be much more profitable elsewhere.

Thus, the history of capitalism generally begins with free competition; i.e. petty-bourgeois production), which naturally progresses to a concentration of production (bourgeois production), which continually strive towards monopolies (socialized production). Monopolies, being so contrary to the foundations of capitalism, are the greatest contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction rampant in the imperialist stage – for every business not only strives toward, but needs to dominate markets completely, to become a monopoly, while government must do everything it can to prevent this in order to survive, realising this social form of production ultimately destroys the capitalist system.

"[Imperialism] is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits)... [throughout] the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations [now called multi-national conglomerates]. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations "divide" them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured – railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization.

"Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable." (p. 205)

Vladimir Lenin
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 13 Feb 2012, 03:37
Its not just an issue of invasion but yes pointing to invasions does help my case and seeing how you didn't counter them I assume you agree. I said bigger and yes size wise it was also how many countries has the us hand boots on the ground in and then leave or not fully take over. Now lets see how many the soviet union leave.

I did and i stand by what was stated until you prove other wise.

Oh ok so the government that took power by a coup was fearful of a coup so they invited the soviet union in to over take the nation oh ok. And america was invited to Vietnam and korea and Iraq and every country has a reason other then evil Imperialism to use.

Oh ok so it was ok cause they had different views. So Imperialism is ok when they have different views then you.

Didn't hear any thing about the winter war guess they had different views to right.

Oh so anyone else does it it's evil imperialism the soviet union does it its gory to the people.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Feb 2012, 04:08
Quote:
Its not just an issue of invasion but yes pointing to invasions does help my case and seeing how you didn't counter them I assume you agree. I said bigger and yes size wise it was also how many countries has the us hand boots on the ground in and then leave or not fully take over. Now lets see how many the soviet union leave.

What are you talking about? America has numerous bases around the world.
And the Soviet army left all WarPac countries in 1989,having previously "invaded" none,except for interventions in Hungary and Cze (the latter done with assistance of several countries).

Quote:
Didn't hear any thing about the winter war guess they had different views to right.

Some imperialism lol.
The USSR asked for a small strip of worthless land around Lenin,in exchange offering Finland vast territories in Karelia.
Also Finland staged numerous provocations and so on.
If the USSR had been imperialist,then it would have pushed further than Viipuri after it defeated the Finns,which it didn't.It satisfied with what it asked for in the first place+some minor additions.
That wasn't an imperialist war in any way.

Quote:
I did and i stand by what was stated until you prove other wise.

What did you state? Also learn to use caps.

Quote:
Oh ok so the government that took power by a coup was fearful of a coup so they invited the soviet union in to over take the nation oh ok. And america was invited to Vietnam and korea and Iraq and every country has a reason other then evil Imperialism to use.

ROK and S.Vietnam were imperialist puppets.

Quote:
Oh ok so it was ok cause they had different views. So Imperialism is ok when they have different views then you.

Nonsense.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Feb 2012, 05:19
Quote:
I said bigger and yes size wise it was also how many countries has the us hand boots on the ground in and then leave or not fully take over. Now lets see how many the soviet union leave.


It can be contended that the Soviet Union conquered the Baltic States and established satellite governments in central Europe, but your statement that Soviet Union was more imperialist than the US is one of incredible ignorance in the face of modern world history. The United States has had a far more pervasive hold on nations throughout Latin America, Africa, and Asia, both in terms of economic blackmail and in boots on the ground. You can point to Prague Spring and the Hungarian uprising, but I could equally point to the US invasions of El Salvador, Granada, and the Dominican Republic, not to mention the scores of coups orchestrated the CIA, whether it was Iran, Iraq (in the 60s, in this case), Guatemala, Ghana, Chile, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Burkina Faso, Honduras, etc. And believe me, even when US "boots on the ground" left, those countries acted at the behest of Washington and American business interests, not as independent sovereign nations as you would seem to believe. It is no accident that many countries around the world who won their independence from colonialism gravitated toward the Soviet Union for economic assistance and protection of their sovereignty, even in their nominal state of "non-alignment".

As for boots on the ground, the Soviet army, outside the national borders, was limited to a presence in the Eastern Bloc and in Afghanistan after 1979; the US spread their hard power everywhere.

Mainstream history may be written by the winners, which explains your comment about "googling soviet imperialism", but it is far better for you to educate yourself on the true nature of imperialism, and you will then understand who is by far the bigger perpetrator (in the past and at present).
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Nov 2011, 04:24
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2012, 00:24
Sure america does have basses around the world and I fell like we should close them down such a waste of money that could be used to improve the way of life for us and others. But I wonder how much money the Soviet Union pissed away on toys like America. Ok so the CCCP never invaded germany or poland. We also agreed it's not just boats on the grounds just think if others tried to break away the same would have happened to them. The Soviet Union had its claws into the countries holding down there freedoms. Which side of the wall fell again.
Ok now we got a break threw here. so some imperialism did happen good were making some head way.
And north korea and north vietnam were puppet states for the Soviet Union. Well not so much N vietnam uncle HU CHI wasn't a bad guy with my understanding of the issue. America just wanted to stop the spread of the soviet union aka Imperialism. Yet they were ok with french but the good guys won out in the end.
Oh but you clearly stated that hungry was fascists so it was ok.


Il say the same to you as I have said before It was bigger size wise learn to read. I never said more You already agreed in your fist line that the Soviet Union did in fact conquer others. End of debate the Soviet Union was in fact Imperialist maybe not more then others maybe less then some but they were in fact the same problem you stand to fight and really we all should. They are in the same bed with everyone else they just labeled the box another way. Sorry but the soviet Union was a bully on the playground to maybe not the biggest but does that really matter a bully is a bully.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 101
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Dec 2011, 01:28
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2012, 02:22
sovietsean wrote:
Sure america does have basses around the world and I fell like we should close them down such a waste of money that could be used to improve the way of life for us and others. But I wonder how much money the Soviet Union pissed away on toys like America. Ok so the CCCP never invaded germany or poland. We also agreed it's not just boats on the grounds just think if others tried to break away the same would have happened to them. The Soviet Union had its claws into the countries holding down there freedoms. Which side of the wall fell again.
Ok now we got a break threw here. so some imperialism did happen good were making some head way.
And north korea and north vietnam were puppet states for the Soviet Union. Well not so much N vietnam uncle HU CHI wasn't a bad guy with my understanding of the issue. America just wanted to stop the spread of the soviet union aka Imperialism. Yet they were ok with french but the good guys won out in the end.
Oh but you clearly stated that hungry was fascists so it was ok.


Il say the same to you as I have said before It was bigger size wise learn to read. I never said more You already agreed in your fist line that the Soviet Union did in fact conquer others. End of debate the Soviet Union was in fact Imperialist maybe not more then others maybe less then some but they were in fact the same problem you stand to fight and really we all should. They are in the same bed with everyone else they just labeled the box another way. Sorry but the soviet Union was a bully on the playground to maybe not the biggest but does that really matter a bully is a bully.


An empire needs to make money off of the areas it dominates to the extent that it increases its power and takes up more territory. The USSR was a terrible empire by this measurement as it routinely gave things away to liberation movements without expecting much in return. When you look at Cuba and N. Korea the USSR gave them much fairer terms of trade than other developing nations of the global south which shows how well they were doing before the fall. Important to mention here, and as it has been elsewhere on the forum, many in Eastern bloc lived better materially speaking than Russians, usually in a conventional empire, ie the American empire, most of the people in its key sphere of influence do not live better than they do, Latin America. Or France and French Africa. The other thing is apart from the military interventions you listed, there were numerous disagreements and rifts between socialist leaders in the Cold War.

Even reading Wikipedia you will find people who were supporters of Soviet policy during their life, additional citations have been added to demonstrate how they 'came around' and realized the inherent evil in what they were supporting, and as mentioned in the posts above we do live in an era where discussing Cold War history is highly politicized, and often conforms to victor's history interpretations. It will be a while yet before we start seeing more thorough evaluations come out, I think the trend is starting but like I said, will be a long time yet before this changes perception in general public. In reaction I have noticed an insistence of the bourgeois media to bring up the 'crimes of communism' at every interval, after all, people were getting too nostalgic lol.
Essentially people were coming to an understanding not tainted by this angels-and-demons dichotomy and realizing there was both good and bad from socialist experience, and that the american dream is not so golden after all. I am familiar with the mountains of evidence of Soviet Imperialism, but still reluctant to call it an empire in the conventional sense.

We need to look at the groth imperative and how it differed in the Soviet Union. Studying planning, many post-modern theorists have associated the grid networks as themselves demonstrative of imperialism, and yet we do have this modernist character in cities in East and West. Yet still, I look at the 'post-modern' architecture wonders and I'm unsure what the ostensibly emancipatory value of such decadent works are. Post-modernism and its whole recasting of imperialism as being equal to both participants in Cold War is certainly part because in the retelling of history we lack a version of the story from all sides. There is the American government line, and that of the American people, but very scant sourcing of Soviet people or soviet researchers. What emerges mostly is dissident views, and occasionally contemporary researchers from former Eastern bloc, but they are vastly in the minority compared to the British and American 'experts.' Its no different than how African Studies departments were formed largely of whites in the beginning, and they taught the same way, the Anglo-Saxon view on that history. Sovietology emerged much the same way and mainly operated as some sort of condemnatory narrative on Soviet experience. These are the people in the academic setting which produced anti-Soviet propaganda and departments funded by CIA and other US corporations. Universities, being under pressures from various actors, alumni, government and private funding are of course subservient to other interests. In order to publish a book which contrasts with the generally accepted status quo of democratic engagement in the liberal democratic order one has to go to much greater lengths, and it can be near impossible to accomplish which I think in itself is an effective deterrent in removing a lot of alternative views. Publishers, especially those at the university level, control the way history is presented from the Cold War. In sum, there are many factors at play which influence the information we are presented with.

I think right now we are seeing what the MR describe as Monopoly Capitalism. Applying this to the internet we see monopolies of facebook on social networking, youtube on videos, google on searching and most importantly, wiki on credible, neutral information. The problem is we need to assess the vested interests these organizations have in controlling information. Google and Wikipedia are not neutral, at all. Reading the discussion pages on many Wikipedia articles pertaining to socialism should reveal a strong bias to underrepresent the socialist point of view, and many of the sources are questionable. The amount of articles referenced by CIA, Library of congress, Economist, BBC is astounding and I would assert comprise the majority of articles on the website. I think its great when the rare socialist goes in and adds something to the article, but this is not always the case, and as such I really don't think Wikipedia does any great service to promoting some clarity on the events in the Cold War. You know what they say, "'There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth....' 
"The present is a time of struggle; the future is ours."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 13
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jul 2011, 15:36
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 16 Feb 2012, 21:15
Yes I would say so quite well. The flag alliance is a crimson banner with Russian script. They could be starting something and I would be happy if they were. : )
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron