Nah, the problem was that it wasn’t even close to socialism, and instead was a sort of reactionary agrarian system with brutal repressions. It was stopped by the communists. Pointing out that the US Empire backed it is to prove the point that it absolutely wasn’t leftist, and that “tankies” don’t support it.
Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.
The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.
Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
Not sure what you’re really getting at, my takes are very standard among Marxist-Leninists. What makes you think I’d be unqualified to speak on socialism? Are you saying you think Pol Pot was genuinely a socialist?
Nah, the problem was that it wasn’t even close to socialism, and instead was a sort of reactionary agrarian system with brutal repressions. It was stopped by the communists. Pointing out that the US Empire backed it is to prove the point that it absolutely wasn’t leftist, and that “tankies” don’t support it.
Sorry I ain’t taking socialism lessons from the same guy who thinks ruzzia is not an imperialist state, among other questionable takes.
Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.
The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.
Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
Not sure what you’re really getting at, my takes are very standard among Marxist-Leninists. What makes you think I’d be unqualified to speak on socialism? Are you saying you think Pol Pot was genuinely a socialist?