How do you respond to this? It’s not something I’ve done a lot of research into, but it seems like one of the few critiques where you just say “critical support for the USSR, we need to learn from the past mistakes the soviets made and do better the next time around.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

learning second language type stuff or shuffling people (*as in workers, not deportations, which weren't russian people being moved around) around ussr itself? If the second one, why anarchist suddenly concerned with ethnic purity? If the first one, what second language should people in ussr learn, english?

Like don't get me wrong, deportations inside ussr using kazakhstan as a dumping ground (crimean tartars definitely, but that was also uzbekistan i believe) and nuclear tests - that's very much bad, but i think, on the latter, ussr did them in russian parts as well, so it's equal sparsity of population stuff, not some deliberate policy.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If the second one, why anarchist suddenly concerned with ethnic purity?

Sorry to sound defensive of liberalism, but there's a difference between caring about ethnic purity and not wanting forced relocations of ethnic groups.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Because workers arriving to build irrigation projects are not exactly "forced relocation". And again, forced relocations were very much bad and a mistake, but they weren't russians being relocated.

Now some of these projects by themselves, were ill considered and not relied on local expertise, and just vibe-did stuff (especially agriculture during corn-man-khrush ), but i find it hard to believe sinister motive around them

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

Fair about Russians specifically which is the subject of the thread. You already gave the disclaimer about Tartars, so you're good, I was just spelling it out explicitly.

[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago

yeah that seems like a very bad faith interpretation to me

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

She’s native american, she just brought up something a friend who’s of Kazakstani heritage told her about losing their language bc of Russification.

Edit: she also said that their mom had moved to Israel after the USSR collapsed so there’s that aspect of it, too.

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago

She’s definitely not some cracker brand anarchist, I just think she’s a little earlier on in her political journey. Doesn’t like communism bc “hierarchy”

[–] Chertstone@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago

Modern day Kazakhstan is currently moving into the ukraine revisionist direction. Especially due to pan-turanism and growing Kazakh population moving north into formerly russian majority regions. There was a similar issue in Siberia, where russia build a city to develop the local economy and 50k (for example russians) while 10k native Siberians lived in rural regions before (and werent kicked out afterwards).

So on paper it appears to look like that suddenly the an ASSR of 90% natives became only 30%! Of course then you had people moving to these cities for healthcare or education reasons and suddenly people started assimilating. Although a lot of the issues were caused by the need for autocracy (like growing cotton in central asia) and corn-man-khrush

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Genuinely asking, wouldn't it be Kazakh heritage? Or am I wrong here?

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh, I guess it is. Thanks for letting me know

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago

No worries. I just wasn't sure.