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

Khmer Rouge prison chief Duch found guilty

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 01 Nov 2010, 16:41
Quote:
And I don't see what's wrong with social-imperialism theory.

The idea of preserving national prestige, order, and progress on the hands of others so one state is socialist while the others suffer?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Nov 2010, 16:45
I think he was defending the concept of social-imperialism, not the social-imperialist state itself, Trent. In fact, a defense of the concept would entail a criticism of such states, so you really just agreed with him.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Oct 2010, 15:30
Pioneer
Post 04 Nov 2010, 18:00
Yeah, I was defending the theory of social-imperialism, not a social-imperialist State
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 04 Nov 2010, 18:02
What is this theory of social-imperialism anyway?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 04 Nov 2010, 18:07
During the Sino-Soviet split, Mao exploited the fact that the USSR had surrounded itself with the Eastern Bloc to call them social-imperialists. A social-imperialist state is supposedly a state with a progressive social order that nevertheless exploits foreign countries. It's bullcrap of course. See here: viewtopic.php?f=108&t=48087
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Oct 2010, 15:30
Pioneer
Post 05 Nov 2010, 17:10
Mao Tsetung explained his theory of social-imperialism after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Social-imperialism was a consequence of what Lenin called "the transformation of opportunism in imperialism": the new Soviet bourgeoisie, the privileged class of bureaucrats ruling the country, was pursuing an imperialist agenda just like the U.S. This was confirmed by the above-mentioned Czechoslovakian invasion, pro-Soviet regimes in Africa, the invasion of Cambodia by Viet Nam, the invasion of Afghanistan, Jaruzelzki's coup in Poland, and so on. The difference with "classic" imperialism was that the Soviet Union had an economy almost entirely controlled by its ruling clique.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 05 Nov 2010, 17:19
Quote:
This was confirmed by the above-mentioned Czechoslovakian invasion

Soviet assistance against reactionary and imperialist elements in the Czechoslovak Comparty.

Quote:
pro-Soviet regimes in Africa

Socialist states who represented the vanguard of progress,peace and socialism in backwards, violence and poverty-ridden (post)colonial Africa.

Quote:
the invasion of Cambodia by Viet Nam

The liberation of Cambodia from reactionary imperialist-CIA backed criminal clique.

Quote:
the invasion of Afghanistan

Assistance to a friendly socialist state endangered by reactionary(USA,Pakistan and China backed) bandits.

Quote:
Jaruzelzki's coup in Poland

A failed attempt to prevent the counterrevolution led by "Solidarnosć".

Quote:
The difference with "classic" imperialism was that the Soviet Union had an economy almost entirely controlled by its ruling clique.

Proof? Source?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 05 Nov 2010, 17:31
Well if the CPSU is called a "ruling clique", the last statement is obviously true. However, it's ridiculous to call them a bourgeoisie. It's obvious if you look at the economic history of the supposedly social-imperialist USSR that the purpose of this economy was the welfare of the people instead of the profit of any ruling class, because there were no antagonistic classes in the USSR. The fact that some corrupt elements in the CPSU enriched themselves does not change this basic truth. Food was produced for the people to eat it, NOT for some bourgeoisie to sell it in order to make a profit, and that's why the USSR was socialist until Gorbachev, kthx.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 105
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Mar 2010, 05:37
Pioneer
Post 05 Nov 2010, 23:32
I also do not believe classes actually existed in the USSR. To be more precise, if a class is defined by it's relation to means of production, in the USSR no classes existed as all property was state owned. So, the affirmation that classes existed in the USSR may be debatable or not, but not from a marxist viewpoint.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.