what makes you think marx would have dissapproved of the ussr?
The red fascism, genocide, anti-semitism, and inevitable collapse into just actual fascism.
(Don't ask Bakunin about the anti-semitism)
(Or who he thought led their evil cabal)
Though I think Marx would generally have considered the USSR merely part of the inevitable process.
Okay, regardless of what political tendency you end up at, you really have to understand that none of those things are true. This is just a matter of history.
The USSR was not fascist, it was as far from fascism as any political system can possibly be. It was fundamentally anti-imperialist and was by far the most important actor in the defeat of European fascism in the 20th century, as well as in supporting national liberation movements across the world afterwards. Its collapse was devastating to workers' and indigenous peoples' rights globally.
Similarly, the USSR not only did not commit any genocides, not only was not antisemitic, but was essentially the only thing standing in the way of the total extermination of every single person from west Poland to Siberia by the German Nazis' genocidal colonial expedition. Red Army prisoners of war were the first to die in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and Red Army soldiers liberated it and stopped the Holocaust. The idea that the USSR committed genocide, whether by 'intentionally causing famine' or by any other means you may have heard, is a lie that provably originated with Joseph Goebbels himself, and was amplified by the media empire of US fascist William Randolph Hearst.
If you want any books or articles to read about any of this then I'll happily provide them, but understanding the real history of the first socialist nation is absolutely crucial to both understanding the world as it is now and imagining how it can be changed for the better in the future.
Beautiful effort post. Made even better by the immediate "lalala I can't hear you" reply
Sorry, I would treat your arguments with respect, but I can't hear you "anti-imperialism" stans over the tanks rolling through Budapest, or your cheering of the invasion of Ukraine with 500,000 casualties.
Firstly, Budapest?? That's a wild first example, either way here's a book about it.
Secondly, I hope you understand the different between the USSR and the Russian Federation, but regardless
Can you explain this image?
As in, is your understanding of the world able to generate an explanation for this image here?
If I were to explain it, I would say: NATO-backed Nazis took over Ukraine in a violent coup, started persecution and ethnic cleansing of the Russian-speaking minority in the Donbas region leading to a civil war, which Russia begrudgingly joined - eight years late - on the morally correct side. Russia tried de-escalating for nearly a decade, and even once the war started in earnest it could have ended just two months later in April 2022, but Zelensky tore up a peace deal on the orders of the west leading to the pointless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians - all in the name of being able to kill Ukrainian Russian-speakers. As a kicker: Zelensky's mother tongue is Russian, he learned Ukrainian later.
If that makes you feel better about M-L. The sins of the past don't need to be the sins of the future.
It doesn't "make me feel better", it's the objective historical truth.
There is a true sequence of events that actually happened in real life. That sequence can only be determined by the evidence left behind, the collecting and interpreting of which is a painstaking and fallible process - but through rigorous investigation the true history of the world CAN be reconstructed.
However, if you're not the one investigating, then you have to assess the reconstructions presented by those who do. What biases do they have? Who is funding their research? In what context have they chosen to present it? Who disagrees with them, what are their alternative conclusions, what is the difference in quality of evidence and analysis?
And so I have to ask you, how did you come to your understanding of history? How many books have you read? By who? What have you heard and where? Who was telling you? What evidence did they present?
WHY ARE YOU SO SURE YOU'RE RIGHT?
What evidence have you personally been presented that gives you absolute confidence in your worldview? I can show you why I believe what I believe about history, can you show me why you do? For western anticommunist leftists, the answer is usually "No", because your understanding of the history of existing socialism has been carried over whole-cloth from your lifelong capitalist indoctrination.
If any of this jogs you into a realization that your historical understanding is not based on any kind of solid evidence or research, I'd be happy to recommend some sources. More than happy in fact, I'd be thrilled! Read! You have to read history! If you don't, your attempts to change the world will fail! Would you try to build a house without reading about the properties of wood, steel and concrete? How can you try to build a movement to improve the world without investigating those who went before you? Do you think you can just 'freestyle' it?!
Anyway, I'll leave one book here in case it piques your interest - Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti - which was crucial to developing my personal understanding of the actual place of the USSR in world history, as well as understanding the material basis of fascism in capitalist society and why it is the direst mortal enemy of communism. You can take my suggestion to read it or you can ignore it, but either way at least be honest and don't lie to yourself about the sources of your beliefs.
This risks exposing vulnerable people to a truly dangerous ideology: Homestuck.
This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes