Why do you support ideology that killed thousands of people? As a person, who lives in post communist country, I really don't understand how someone could praise such ideology, especialy after the failure of USSR
When someone dies under socialism, it’s socialism’s fault. When someone dies under capitalism, “well, life is hard, that’s just the way it is.”
You ask me how I can support an ideology that has killed thousands of people. Well, how can you? Surely, using your logic that anyone dying of unnatural causes under socialism means their death was socialism’s fault, capitalism has killed hundreds of millions of people.
“They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?” - Fidel Castro
The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania or Act of March 11 (Lithuanian: Aktas dėl Lietuvos nepriklausomos valstybės atstatymo) was an independence declaration by the Lithuanian Socialist Republic adopted on March 11, 1990, signed by all members of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania led by Sąjudis. The act emphasized restoration and legal continuity of the interwar-period Lithuania, which was occupied by the USSR and lost independence in June 1940. It was the first time that a Union Republic declared independence from the dissolving Soviet Union.
March 17, 1991: 26 years ago today, the Soviet people voted to preserve the USSR.
The referendum held on March 17, 1991, stated: “Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
In defiance of the counter-revolutionaries who had seized the governing apparatus and the leadership of the CPSU, an overwhelming majority of Soviet citizens IN EVERY REPUBLIC voted “Yes.” The only exception was in a few republics where the “democrats” in power did not allow the vote to take place. Elsewhere there was 80 percent voter turnout.
Soldiers of the Soviet Red Army greeting the surviving children of Auschwitz Concentration Camp, 27th of January, 1945]
72 years ago, as the Soviet Red Army and the Polish People’s Army
advanced westwards to liberate Poland from German Nazi occupation, on
the 27th of January, 1945, the First
Ukrainian Front of the Red Army under the command of Marshal Ivan Konev
arrived at the gates of Auschwitz Concentration Camp, liberating its
54,651 surviving inmates whom the Nazi SS imprisoned. As the Soviet
soldiers open the gates inscribed with the fascist slogan “arbeit macht
frei”, releasing the surviving prisoners of Auschwitz, they were greeted
with utmost joy and relief by the prisoners, as their ordeal of years
of the most brutal fascist oppression has finally ended. Entering the
concentration camp, the soldiers of the Soviet Red Army discover the
horrifying graphic evidence of the Nazis’ torture, human
experimentation, and mass extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
invalids, homosexuals, communists, and anyone they deem as “untermensch”
Afterwards, the survivors of Auscwhitz were
immediately brought to medical attention by the Soviet Red Army to be
nurtured back to health. Rudolf Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz
Concentration Camp, was executed by the troops of the Polish People’s
Army at the site of the camp on the 16th of April, 1947 after being
tried and sentenced to death in Warsaw by the Supreme National Tribunal
of the Polish People’s Republic. On the 1st of November, 2005, the
General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 60/7 to
annually commemorate the 27th of January, the anniversary of the
Liberation of Auschwitz Concentration Camp in 1945, as “International
Holocaust Remembrance Day.”
Did the USSR have a colonial relationship with outer SSRs under Lenin and Stalin?
One of the staple errors of the Bolshevik line when it came to self-determination of oppressed peoplesunder tsarismwas the lack of struggle or attempting to correct Great Russian Chauvinism (Lenin himself was guilty of this, and Stalin, as an ethnic Georgian, had even less influence to counter it), resulting in situations such as the Tashkent Soviet where the Bolsheviks established a Revolutionary Government with almost no participation from the local population/workers. However when these [workers] tried to set up their own [Muslim] Bolshevik branch, they were heavily repressed by the Bolsheviks.
While you could argue the following (from an otherwise anti-communist source):
“... the regime’s economic policy as a whole does not discriminate against the minority areas and their economic development in favor of the Great Russians. Soviet industrialization was, of course, based on forced savings, which the government extracted for investment at the cost of popular consumption. But the minorities were not asked to bear a disproportionate share of the resulting hardships of a depressed living standard. The burden fell on all; in fact, it might be argued that the Great Russian majority initially made the greater sacrifice in order to permit the development of the capital-hungry, economically backward areas.
One economist has estimated, for example, that while the all-Union living standard fell markedly during the 1930’s, in the four republics of Central Asia (not counting Kazakhstan), it may actually have improved to a slight degree. At the time the local economy was undergoing rapid change, as indicated by the fact that industrial output, which had been negligible, multiplied between six and nine times over between 1928 and 1937. Such an increase could only have been accomplished by the substantial investment of capital drawn from other parts of the country and by the application of new technology. Such help was even more important to the agriculture of the region.
In the initial stage of European colonial development, substantial capital was invested in the colonies, but often only in order to create a one-crop economy that in the long run was economically disadvantageous to the local people. There was an element of this approach in the Soviet regime’s insistence on the expansion of cotton acreage in Central Asia, usually at the expense of existing wheat crops. But the area was not treated simply as a vast cotton plantation for the rest of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, existing resources of other kinds were widely developed. A hydro-electric power industry was developed, the output of which increased 8.5 times over in the period 1928-37. Earlier virtually all cotton had been shipped to Russia to be made into textiles, which in turn had to be shipped back, but in the 1930’s a substantial textile industry was established in Tashkent. Leather shoe-making was established to utilize the hides from the region’s extensive herds. These efforts make it evident that capital was retained in the area and not syphoned off for accumulation at the center. The data already cited on the growth of education and other cultural and social facilities similarly indicate that a goodly share of the returns accrued from exploitation of the region’s natural wealth was reinvested in raising standards in the region.
Although the central Asian case may be one of the more outstanding examples, it reflects the general pattern of Soviet policy in the economic development of backward areas. The allocation of investment during the process of economic expansion has not in any significant degree been guided by considerations of nationality, but rather by those of economic efficiency or the defense needs of the country. And the benefits—as well as the burdens—which have resulted from economic development have been more or less equally shared by all peoples of the Soviet Union.“
(Alex Inkeles, “Nationalities in the USSR.” Problems of Communism Vol. 9 No. 3 (May 1960). pp. 33-34.)
The study of Soviet history gives you ample evidence that Great Russian colonialism was present until the dissolution of the Soviet Union (further intensifying during the decentralisation of the Soviet economy during Khrushchev), and this is noticeable on the expectations raised by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic regarding other Soviet republics and their society, culture, etc.
Our overall opinion falls on that the USSR, as an alliance of Soviet Republics, had an important role in developing backward feudal societies into industrialised ones, revitalising their cultures, and providing material conditions for millions of workers, as well as promoting the liberation of women and their importance within a socialist society.
But this alliance was a deeply flawed one, and riddled with serious contradictionsthat remain unresolved even todayas consequence of the colonial relationship between western Soviet republics and the eastern Soviet Republics – the continuous export of resources from the latter to the industry of the former, the concentration of industry in western Soviet republics, and the uneven development that kept eastern Soviet republics almost entirely agrarian save for a few specific industries.
Queen Máxima of the Netherlands is visiting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam from Tuesday 30 May to Thursday 1 June 2017 in her role as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development. Vietnam is developing a national strategy for inclusive finance to promote adequate, affordable and sustainable access to financial services.
But seriously, the Soviet Referendum of 1991 truly proved just how little people had to say inside communist regimes, as in March 17, 1991, while the country was collapsing due to the economic troubles brought by socialist policies, the recently-ended Afghan war, and the extremely costly Chernobyl disaster, the government decided to let the people decide what would be its future, with the following question:
Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?
There was and 80% turnout, and over 70% of voters voted yes, winning in all soviet republics (except in Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Moldova, where the vote was boycotted by local authorities), and yet, it all meant shit as just a few months later, on
26 December 1991, the Soviet Union was officially disolved, not even close of surviving 100 years of communism.
Such is life under these regimes, set up “for the people”, only to completely ignore them, the regimes doing as the please while running on nepotism and totalitarianism.