"You were the Marxist state! It was said that you would destroy empires not join them! Bring socialism to the world! Not lead it into darkness!" - Obi-Lenin Kenobi addressing the USSR.
I hate when people use whataboutism. It is the most frustrating thing to deal with when someone is debating you. I mean at least my government lets me complain about it without having to worry about being thrown in prison or out a window.
Whataboutism is frustrating but in many cases it does serve a purpose against hypocrisy. If I accuse you that your shit smells horrible and you tell me "everyone's shit smells horrible even yours" I cannot use "whataboutism" as an excuse because I was a hypocrite accusing you for something everyone does.
If the successor state to an empire violently occupies the same territory as the empire and imposes its style of government over those areas that's a pretty good sign that it's operating as an empire
@@FufuFufy-df8pknot really. For example, the USA did not invade France when De Gaulle hosted Kruschev withball the cerimony, pomp, etc. Neither did invade or occupy Sweden while their government was helping diplomatically and financially Ho Chi Minh by the times of Vietnam War. Can't say the same about Hungary in 56 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. The America exerted an imperial more in Central America, closest to that of the Soviets in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
For America, the European space was not important, so it was less aggressive than the Soviet Union, which needed it out of fear of internal opposition (in Poland, for example, there were Ukrainian terrorist groups, which Stalin feared until his death) As a result, the Soviet Union tried in every way to supress every Eastern European country People forget, however, that they know how to make the United States worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything from its paranoia before communism, even if it is not; People forget, however, that they know how to make the US worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything out of its paranoia before communism, even if it is not necessary; Yeah both countries are Empire
For America, the European space was not important, so it was less aggressive than the Soviet Union, which needed it out of fear of internal opposition (in Poland, for example, there were Ukrainian terrorist groups, which Stalin feared until his death) As a result, the Soviet Union tried in every way to supress every Eastern European country People forget, however, that they know how to make the United States worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything from its paranoia before communism, even if it is not; People forget, however, that they know how to make the US worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything out of its paranoia before communism, even if it is not necessary; Yeah both countries are Empire
@@FufuFufy-df8pk who did the Bahamas conquer? plenty of successor states to empires have been well behaved on the international scene, and relatively democratic as well. the USSR is not one of them.
As a Poli Sci major, I would love more episodes exploring the political and governmental structures of the various Marxist-Leninist and/or post-colonial states. Great episode!
Poli Sci major here also. I concur. I would love to hear the specifics of the Soviet government structure. Moreover, I would love if Soviet federalism was discussed/ analyzed.
I have never realized that the imperial status if the USSR was being questioned In that sense, could you do a similar video but for the USA and China, those requiere more analysis, USSR was too easy xD
@adinarapratama5607 Influence and meddling without actual land control and physical government control is not the definition of empire. If that were so every nation is an empire to a degree. Find me a stronger concrete definition please.
@@Denozo88I’d disagree I believe the US would still count as an Empire as we control Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands and have a large hand in the existence of the nations close to the US and will overthrow systems dangerous to the US goals with ease. The US is still an Empire
🇺🇸 may not be perfect but hey, I can politely insult and despise America without having some FBI guy knocking at my door to beat the crap out of me. Can I do the same in 🇷🇺? Or 🇨🇳? We really need to tell ourselves “could’ve been worse” sometimes... Btw I’m from 🇪🇺
I find that whataboutism is often invoked by people determined to not face their own hypocrisy, as a side-comment towards the last bit. Not in this case, though, I think it was a fair and balanced video. Anyway, of course the USSR was an empire, that shouldn't even be up for debate. Signed, a citizen of a nation under the thumb of the US.😉
I don't see how the USSR and USA wouldn't self-evidently be considered empires. They even both checked off the "catastrophically unsuccessfully invade Afghanistan" bingo square.
Even if USA projects power (a lot) it does not directly govern any land or people other than the American population. You can hardly think different states with same culture, population ethnicity, equal rights and representation as parts of an empire. Soviet Union (and Russia) directly annexes territories. US'A only affects their policies.
@@menninkainen8830 USA has many times done coups and directly military action against sovereign nations and put their own puppets in place so that those countries act as their vassal states. It also weaponizes international institutions like the world bank and the UN against other nations to force them to submission. America is definitely an empire
Which is ironic because the Baltics suffered way more imperial and aggressive Soviet rule than other Eastern European states, including the former-Nazi East Germany.
@@Vonstab The Baltic states became states only 20 years before this "occupation", before that they were Russian for 200 years and before that Swedish or Teutonic. You can see how no one regarded them as "real" countries. Not to mention the absolutely disgusting anti-semitism in that region. First part of Europe to be declared free of Jews under the Nazis. This was only possible because the locals helped enthusiastically.
@@chepushila1 it's funny how you point out the antisemitism in the Baltics in order to de-legitimize them and later you point the "purchase" of the Baltic lands by the Russian Empire, which was, until their doom in 1917, the most anti-semitic and jew-hating place on Earth.
The definition of an empire has changed massively from say Empires 2000 years ago to what was the British Empire of the 1800's and what is arguably, the American one of today. They just are not the same things but they existed. I don't really like those definitions presented, they seem to suggest that an elected government cannot be an empire since they don't rule over others, the UK parliament held power over the queen/king by the 1800's when everyone agrees the British Empire ruled 1/4 the planet directly. And the US had an actual old school type of Empire by the early 1900s ruling over the Philippines and Cuba/Puerto Rico as a democracy. Great video though, gives a lot to thing about. Would like more like this.
Another empire that was a monarchy, then a republican non autocratic empire was the French colonial empire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#First_French_colonial_empire 1534-1980.
Yes. It held power over nations outside its borders. Exported its culture to these nations. It became the same thing that the Bolsheviks claimed to be opposed to.
@@FufuFufy-df8pk The Baltics, where, despite most of the population being either Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian, the Russian migrants hold most managerial/strategic positions in industries. For example, in the heavy-earth industry high-paying jobs were almost exclusively allocated to Russians. Not very different from what the British did to India, actually.
@@worldinsights930 Or maybe they occupied these places because the locals didn’t know how to do anything? The Baltic states were an agricultural country before the USSR, under the USSR it was an industrial country, and now it is again an agrarian country, all factories there are closed, nuclear power plants do not work either. they live only on EU subsidies
@@FufuFufy-df8pk Oh boy I sure do wonder why the baltics weren't developed in the 30's. Absolutely nothing to do with being under the oppressive rule of the Russian empire just a decade prior. Let us also ignore the extremely fast development and improvement in quality of life, education and infrastructure in Estonia after the curtain fell. Sure, some of that is due to subsidies but I'd hardly call that "living only on subsidies".
The founders of the Soviet Union meant to create this ideal socialist world, but they fell back on the imperial model that they were familiar with. It was just as authoritarian as the Russian Empire before it. After the fall, Russians experimented with democracy for the first time in their entire history. It failed. Then they once again fell back on the imperial model. And here we are in modern times with Putin as the current czar.
They didnt just "fail" but rather socio-economic conditions of Russia never gave ability to democratic system under central plan to exist, untill late 1980s. Developed socialism is impossible without automation of Bureaucracy by computers. But at that time In USSR the top of "Communist" party has already degraded into elitism so they just wanted to turn back capitalism so that thy would have economic benefits of their position in society so they rejected idea of OGAS(National Automated System for Computation and Information Processing). Something like OGAS was being implemented in Salvador Alliendes Chile called CyberSyn. But this experiment was stopped by a counter-revolution backed by CIA.
@@shauncameron8390 "Wealty" doesnt mean that said wealth is redistributed according to Labour. Not to say anything about redistribution according to needs.
True about the whataboutism thing. Like whenever you start talking abt Ukraine, there are dozens of comments on "what about Iraq?". Like how do you even know if i support US foreign policies?
@@brianbelgard5988 I would prefer it if you actually listen to other people's opinions rather than assuming what they would say in a way that Mis characterises them and shows your own biases. I don't know anyone that would say socialist States can't be Empires because it's the division in power within an Empire's territory that determines whether it's an empire or not rather than the economic systems it operates by. Please think before you say
@@adrianbattersby4791 Marxist Leninists absolutely believe that socialist states can’t be empires. They’re a minority among socialists, but Tankies 100% believe this.
In my opinion, The Soviet Union was a empire in the same sense that North Korea is a republic. Meaning that de facto we all know the Soviet union was a expansionist entity, same as the empires that came before it although operated as a de facto federal communist republic, which it wasn't because Moscow always had the final say about it's internal republics and satellite states. and just to compare North Korea is a de facto hereditary monarchy that de jure operated as a republic, which it isn't, since power in the country remains in the hands of the Kim family.
The internal logic isn't consistent there, so I think you misspoke a word. Soviet Union can't be to an empire as North Korea is to a republic if your arguments are that the Soviet Union really was an empire, but North Korea was not a republic. I think what you meant is that the Soviet Union was an empire in the same sense that North Korea is a dictatorship.
complete bullshit. I suggest you to find out what was(and most important) from where appointed second secretary of party (spoiler alert, it was always Moscow de facto gubernator). secondly, it is only logcial that Moscow didnt decided each affair in countries, but not because it wasnt empire, just because it wasnt worthy its attention. And dont forget russification policy of russia. On paper is one thing (all equal) on street you would see completely different thing. You could live in Latvia knowing only russian languageand be okey, but not vice versa with latvian language.
@@andrisorlovskis4039 agree, USSR was as much a federation as already mentioned North Korea is a republic. While officially it was a federation, it was de-facto a unitary state, divided into regions, because none of them had any kind of autonomy and self-governance. All laws, regulations and decisions were passed on from Moscow, or at least with its intervention.
They lost those in Central Asia and Europe. But still has Tatarstan, Chechnya and most of the Siberian nations and tribes. Not to mention Ukraine. Although Putin seems to be biting on a bit more than he can chew.
@@erikthomsen4768 I don't care what you think about me. I know who I am, regardless of outside opinions of me. If you are truly interested in something, very few things can stop you from gaining the knowledge you seek. If you need to be spoon-fed like a baby, then don't go wondering around on the Internet. P.S. What provoked me, was disgust for you pretending to be helpless.
I feel like people think that "Empire" is an insult so they just say "The US is an empire", or "China is an empire" or "the UK is an empire". I think 95% of people don't actually know what an empire is. They just feel offended so they call countries they hate "empires".
The USSR was expansionist and ruled over a number of what were essentially vassal states that couldn’t do anything without the approval of Moscow. Sounds like an empire to me.
@@FufuFufy-df8pkexcept they were after the fall of the Russian Empire. The Soviet Union reconquered were them. And that’s not even getting into the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union was an empire.
@@baneofbanes These were not countries; after the collapse, some provinces of the Russian Empire were captured by criminals who were almost immediately destroyed.
They have touched on this subject already, so i dont think they are purposefully ignoring it anyway. You have to condense length of videos after all and cant cover everything.
@@Jyryp They mentioned attacking Poland and Finland and Romania, but left out occupying the entire nations of Estonia, Latvia and Estonia. Leaving their fate out of the story is just flat out evil.
@@Jyryp mentioning a few countries and intentionally leaving out the most brutal example of Soviet imperialism is flat out evil. Consider especially that Kremlin propaganda is still denying the fact that it illegally occupied the Baltic states.
I would disagree with that somewhat. Sure, sometimes "whataboutism" is a lazy cop-out. BUT, Sometimes people who accuse the opposition of "whataboutism" are simply using it as a gaslighting deflection fallacy when being called out in a "pot calling the kettle black" type scenario. Which, in a post Feb. 2022 age, is a very useful tactic since the west has a lot of answer for between 1991-Present as well but doesn't want to own up to any of that while slamming Russia for its abuses.
I keep on seeing this leaving out the fiction that Puerto Rico under Spain had enough autonomy to be an independent state. Show me how in 2024 not 1924 the US is an empire. No I will not consider a few sparsely inhabited islands and have strong diplomatic ties with nations to be evidence of empire status.
@@Denozo88 an empire doesn't have to directly control their territories you know? It could exert its influence over less powerful states, in America's case, the Latin American during the cold war The US is still an empire until today, no normal nation would have military bases dotting the entire world, would it? Don't even try to justify imperialism, not the American, Chinese, European, Russian, or any kind of imperialism in anyway, they are evil no matter how you try to justify it
@adinarapratama5607 Wow so tou can't give an actual definition that doesn't apply to most of the world and conflates influence with control. Secondly you are trying to go off on a red herring and say I'm justifying imperialism. On a side note when your nation needs help don't complain when the US says no but get mad when you lose as you say why didn't the US help. The hypocrisy of most of the world astounds me.
It started well, but slipped badly at the end. While your other videos have a certain tone of neutrality and professionalism. The way you narrate this video (using this historical theme as an excuse) seems directly aimed at opinions you disagree with in the comments, transforming what could be an interesting topic into something childish and caricate
I’d say it’s safe to say both the US and Soviet Union were Empires durring the Cold War, though they manifest differently. And the degree to which either is considered an Empire depends very much on your definitions of democracy and role both physical and economic power holds in legitimizing that democracy to the domestic and foreign perspective.
the CIA deposing democratically elected popular leaders in S. America on behalf of private US corporations to prevent them nationalizing their industry and using the profits to improve social relations in their poor countries
so yea the de facto shadow empire of US business interests that our tax dollars pay for. Altho we always had oranges all year round because CIA kept prices low! reason why USSR didn’t have nice consumer goods cuz they wouldn’t take it that far
and China - Look how it treats their "Self/Autonomous Regions" and policies like Belt and Road... Then there's UK which still holds small colonial holdings and then France which exerts control over the economies of west Africa Just empires with different skins.
@@m.a.118 agree with UK and France with their island holdings in Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans but differs on China: 1. Look how it treats their "Self/Autonomous Regions" - Autonomous Regions only means self governed by locals mostly but when any policies or actions conflicts with national security such as separatism, terrorism, collusions with foreign entities, etc., then it is the right of the sovereign state to step in. That is not an proof of empire,, just how most countries view on separatism on their own territories; 2. "policies like Belt and Road" - BRI is an economical + political global policy, but not empirical with any territorial ambitions. I believe you are referring to so called debt-trap diplomacy in which the prime example is the 99 year lease no Sri Lanka port? In this exact example, China secured a 99 year lease to build and run the port how they see fit but the land itself still belongs to Sri Lanka. Renting is not empirical. Plus China is giving 30% profits earned through the port back to Sri Lanka government. The Rent is contracted thus when 99 years is up, China can either negotiate for extension or not. Sri Lanka can either accept extension or reject and take back the land legally. There is precedence such as when UK handed back Hong Kong's New Territories back to China in 1997 after its 99 year lease is up and China refuse to extend it. Portugal also handed Macau back to China after its 99 year lease ran out as it didn't try to extend it either. But unlike these two precedence in which the Leases were signed by China via coercion (military), there was no such coercion from China to Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka didn't like the deal, it could have stopped it and turned to other countries like nearby India. It took China's offer because it offered the most attractive terms for best value.
USSR was an empire no Doubt, only tankies can't see this But we have to remember that united states are pretty much an empire own their own right So I kinda disagree with the phrase " the Soviet union was the last empire '' we still have united states and the Russian federation
@@chaosXP3RT good points both! I would add India if in future decide to project their political and Financial power around their neighborhood and the world
In one of my political science class, most of my class was stumped when I made a valid arguments that the US is under the empire umbrella. My professor was impressed, n he was a conservative leaning.
I'd love to hear/ read your argument. I, too, believe the US during the Cold War (perhaps even now) would qualify as an "empire", though more in economic terms than purely military ones. The USSR wanted everyone to be communist & speak Russian. The USA wanted everyone to buy McDonald's & have a Coke (& a smile). One dominated with the AK, the other dominated with crappy, sugary foods.
@@morgan97475 I primarily focused on military and foreign policy, basically erase “United States” give examples of military bases all over the globe, “defense budget” spending, and the constant micro managing a conflict to get an end result to benefit off of. I like to frame it as “putting the pill in apple sauce”.
empire /ĕm′pīr″/ noun A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
Photo at 12:00 mislabeled. Those guys are, left to right, Molotov, Stalin, and, I believe, Litvinov. Lenin's nowhere to be seen, partly because by then he was dead, though I guess they still could have pulled his preserved corpse out of its mausoleum. 😃
Come guys its literally in the name, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" that OBVIOUSLY means the Soviet Union was a republic, nay a union of them, and not an Empire. After all, what reason would they have to lie? Like the glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it's democratic it even describes it twice.
If Britain was an Empire with colonies with no political recourse then certainly the USSR was an Empire with the Eastern Bloc unable to leave its orbit and nationalities dominated by their Russian “big brother”.
BTW no need to worry nobody is saying “what about”, there’s some really interesting topics to explore; the Philippines, Hawaii, PR, Diego Garcia, Bikini, Japan etc.. China would be fascinating too!
The USSR was an Empire in the Roman model. The USA was/is an empire in the Carthaginian model. The Soviets brought as much territory as they could under their direct control, ruling with direct force and imperial dictates. The US allowed local elites to rule, using economic force and the occasional "regime change" among factions within those elites far more often than direct force.
@@lawsonj39 I mean everyone and their dog comparing every other empire rivalry in history to Rome and Carthage. Believe it or not but neither America nor the Soviets are closer to Rome or Carthage. The Soviet Unions sphere of influence for example was also primarily in the form of puppet and vassal states that they didn’t have direct rule over. Carthage on the other hand was also territorially expansionist My point is I’m tired of teenagers acting like everything reflects back to Ancient Rome.
The Empire definition is very neat under Stalin with one man rule, you have to stretch it a bit with the oligopic rule of the politburo after Stalin. Oligopic Imperialism maybe?
Depends. If you look at it from a Western standpoint, both the 1953 East German uprising and the 1956 Hungarian uprising happened in former Axis states. The Prague Spring was the first one that divided Western opinion and popularized tankies for all the wrong reasons.
Note that the Hungarian uprising was initiated by a group of Communist party-members, esp Nagy, a popular politician then. They wanted reform and more individual freedom for people, just as in Czech republic later. Both uprisings had not the aim of abolishing Socialism.
What-aboutism is a logical fallacy. Problem is there is more to human and social interactions than just Aristotelian logic, that’s why it is effective as a rhetorical tool, no matter the fallacy of it.
I think the "what-aboutism" cuts both ways in this instance. The motivation for the argument behind this video is to show that the USSR, a communist country founded on the Marxist political philosophy of Lenin, is guilty of the same imperialism as the US. It's as you say a fallacious counter-argument to Western Marxists in their criticism of the capitalist US's imperial actions. The several layers of what-about-ing that gets us to here means you're correct in there being more assessing social issue than Aristotelian logic
R U kidding ? No Question! Just compare a map of Czarist Russia and a map of the USSR, and they look like identical twins, don't they ? PS : Colonial Imperialist Empire, they both were!
Just because the Colonies were right next door, doesn't change the fact that they were Colonies. Russian invaders taking control, deporting people settling foreigners to govern and exploit resources without a care of the native peoples. Keeping control by use of violence, including Genocide and destruction of local Culture and Language. The USSR continued this behaviour, including Genocide. As does post-Soviet Union Russia to this day. The only real difference between Russia/USSR and European Colonisation of Africa is Geography.
Different ethnicities, limited self rule, different cultures, united by a common currency, common military, laws and justice system. Economic autarky is also an aspect of an empire as is a shared but not necessarily primary language. More important, you can't leave! Yes the Soviet Union was an empire.
Any multiethnic state pursuing the policy of economic autarky would be an empire by your definition. Actually, one can make the argument that economic autarky is rather a sign that a country is not an empire.
@@Alex-lg6nz Oh nvm. I see that you're just a russian spam bot, judging by your endless kremlin propaganda and dubiously recent creation date. How's the weather in St. Petersburg Ivan?
5:00 While it is true that the UK doesn't tend to call itself an empire anymore, under law the UK is an empire under an Imperial Crown. Although this status of Empire predates "the Empire" which we usually think of
@@marcobonesi6794 You're objectively wrong. It's all publicity available information. I can't force you to see reality, if you refuse to look. Your choice, I'm not here to waste time arguing for sport.
@@marcobonesi6794 Alex is a kremlin propaganda bot, look at his channel. Created a few months ago, devoid of any content and already with hundreds of exclusively pro russian comments.
Soviet Union, the last empire on earth? The US is an empire! What about all those videos you made about Banana Republics and all the other places the US has "intervened" like the middle east or south east asia? Iraq, Afghanastan, Vietnam, etc? You don't have to be a proper dictatorship to be an empire.
If the chief determining Factor to what is an empire is if it's a democracy or dictatorship does that mean the British Empire wasn't an empire because it had an elected Prime Minister
That is not at all what he said. He specifically said that the form of government does matter exactly. Also the British Democracy wasn't universal, most peoples outside the UK had no voice in that parliament and could not chose to remain part of the empire or not. Wales had no autonomy and Ireland was... complicated. Having multiple distinct form of rule over subjects is also a hallmark of mature empires, with some being eager parts, others more loosely associated and some being outright coerced into staying. The Roman Empire is a great example, wgere the exact nature and form was diverse and changed over time. Many parts were conquered, some were jylust outright inherited when a king gifted his domain to the romans. Rome was an Empire long before it had an Emperor.
the vast majority of the people under control of the british crown did not have representation, either in the modern sense (universal suffrage) or in a more historical model (indian oligarchs did not have a seat in parliament).
I'd love to see a follow up episode on whether Cold War USA does or doesn't fall under this rubric. I personally lean twards "yeah" but could see where the voting process or something else keeps it out.
If you actually research how the us government and constitution and electoral college and voting actually works, you'd realize it's exactly the same as the soviets. Yes, the USA is definitely an empire...
Basically, the electoral college prevents the public majority vote from actually counting, its just an "advisory vote", only the electoral college electors, which are chosen directly by senators already in power, can actually cast a vote that counts, and they can elect whoever they want, running or not. Also, because of lobbying, the more money you have, the more likely you can bribe the government to pass a law, bassically its legal bribary. The fact that no term limit exists for the congress who passes laws is also bad because it allows corruption and career politicians, which should be illegal. The same reason the term limit exists for the president is why everyone in power needs them. Basically, only the rich 1% rules the USA just like the nobility in the middle ages of Europe. We're also a 2 party only state because independent parties are technically speaking legally not allowed to run, nor would they ever win against the democrats or Republicans, both of which are as corrupt as the ruling communist party in the USSR. Adding a second political party and a fake election system doesn't mean you're not also an empire.
I'd personally not call the US an empire as of right now. It has some imperialistic aspects to it in the way that it tries to funnel resources to itself from other countries by trying to impose "democracy" on other countries with puppet leaders etc. Today it's not as bad as it used to be. With that said you could argue the USA was an empire before the 20th century. Think of how small the country was when it was officially independent and then moved westwards until it got to the west coast. They killed or exploited I don't even know how many indigenous folk of many cultures in the process and they took massive amounts of land from Mexico. They now ruled over land with primarily Spanish speakers making the country multiethnic through conquest (the fact that the US was already multiethnic from old world migration is a different subject). They also had their civil war vs the Confederate states which could be argued to be a different country with different culture and ideologies that the US wanted to control (although that might be pushing it a little). While the US didn't have one sole emperor, as was addressed in the video, that's not a necessity and I agree. I think in the cold war, it was just barely an empire by puppeting other countries and having a lot of power over those countries although ethnic suppression and resource funneling except for fossil fuels was in my knowledge not to the extent of the traditional empire we think of
@@harku123 Id argue the civil war thing is pushing it, the CSA was never legally recognized by the union as a separate entity, and other nations never legitimately recognized them as a separate entity. Infact, the “we’re fighting for states rights not slavery” didn’t start until halfway through the war, when the CSA was in desperate need of outside aid and was trying to get Britain and France to recognize them as a separate entity from the Union on the world stage, which would legitimize them, and make it not a civil war, but a war between a break away state and the original state. Since the CSA was never legitimized, it was never a real country, and was really only a rebellion. Plus, the union very much seemed like it was going to let the CSA be it’s own thigh, right up until the battle of fort Sumter. I’ve glossed over this heavily but, just my two cents on the topic
@@stuglife5514 thanks for your input, I do agree with you. The CSA barely had a government because they were working in the most important matters at hand, that was the war. I know I was pushing it simply by mentioning it. I suppose Britain was close to intervening on the side of the CSA which could've led to recognition but I know it never got to that point. I think the main idea I was trying to get to was that the Union was trying to impose its ideology on the south who would have rather straight up been a separate polity which imo is an imperialistic aspect. Again I don't really think the US is an empire right now, if ever, but I do think it has many imperialistic aspects, but where is the line? Probably differs greatly between who you ask
@@yunuss58 So, the response to logical and definitional consistency is, "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you." That's cute, but not especially smart.
@@chaosXP3RT I think Robert D. Kaplan explained it best in his article, “Supremacy by Stealth” in the July/August issue of The Atlantic. It's a very clear-eyed view of global hegemony.
There's a reason why most people called Soviets for Russians. And many still think of Soviets as Russians. The USSR was a wicked empire, with Russia as the head. Moscow was the Capital both economically, militarily, politically and ideologically. Also largely culturally. A great way to study the Soviet Union is actually to watch their movies and tv-series. They do not have too much propaganda that is not easy to spot. Soviet films from the mid-late 80's are often really good - especially such films as "Heart of a Dog" or "Life of Ivan Lapshin". Mentioned films are actually critically looking at the history of the USSR. And in Soviet films there is always justice in the end!
Empires can be democratic, though: it’s just a question of how the core governs itself, though it may differ mightily from the periphery - France, Britain, and America are perfect examples of this.
I suppose it depends on how you want to define an Empire, but it's true that the United States, Great Britain and France even to this day are having interests in other parts of the world and sometimes they are willing to use force to uphold their interests.
Was the US an empire? I think maybe pre 04 July 1946 (Philippines independence) But afterwards, I don’t think what we did to the Native Americans & Pacific Islanders & Hispano-America rise up to the level of empire. Plus we are a (flawed) democracy
Yes, particularly since much of the export of American culture and American imperialist actions following WW2 were ostensibly because of the cold war and were varyingly the cause of and/or reaction to a number of the things mentioned in this video.
Leonard Shapiro's book Origin of the Communist Autocracy is a very-interesting "primer" into how, between 1917 and around 1921/1922, the Communists, upon taking power, practically "extinguished" all other official and formal opposition, as well as coopting the rest. To turn what eventually became the RSFSR and then USSR into a "full" one-party state very-fascinating Partly because of the "overly-legalistic and nonviolent" means by which factions like the SRs and Mensheviks operated- compared to the "more extralegal and/or violent" means the Bolsheviks were very-willing and -able to use to crush opposition whenever they felt 'necessary'- as Shapiro notes, there was little 'chance', sadly, of anyone with any "real power" to 'stop' the Bolsheviks from taking extreme power as they did. Hell, they even crushed ANARCHISTS within Ukraine and nearby areas within Russia- the so-called Maknovschina and Ukraine Free Territory, I think- who decided to go against the grain and operate their own non-Bolshevik, "government-free" territories ("live and let live", so to speak). But... apparently this was "too much" for the Bolsheviks! Their egos and authoritarian natures COULDN'T HANDLE folks w/in the 'former Russian Empire' "not being part of the Bolshevik system", lol Even if those other groups *weren't interfering with the Bolshevik project elsewhere (Let alone "wanted it to fail")*. They were just 'doing their own thing' Of course, Marxist-Leninists who LOVE the USSR will come up with all manner of exercises as to why the Bolsheviks "had to impose" so much power over everyone else, esp. OTHER socialist and left-wing factions who wanted similar goals, but... at the end of the day, it's just excuses to justify one-party oligarchy, really. Hell, during the FIRST LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS, shortly after the Bolsheviks took power under Lenin, the SRs *won more seats*, in fact! And the Bolsheviks, in whole, got, like... only 15 or 20% of the total seats, I think? ..though many MLs will claim that "doesn't matter" because, supposedly, in 'the soviets' nationwide, Bolsheviks had a majority (if only a bare majority). I'll take point w/ at least a 'grain of salt' until further evidence that the soviet votes "represented proletarian feeling for sure." It *may* be true, but... even then, the folks *most-likely* to have voted for and/or attended soviet meetings and proceedings were likely *more RSDLP (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, primarily)-sympathizing* anyhow? Like, if the peasants weren't really "active" w/in or toward the soviets but did, every once in a while, *vote in State Duma elections*, whereas the workers in various cities *did vote for and affiliate w/ the soviets*, how do we "know for sure" which one was "truly representative of proletarian and 'common man' feeling", esp. given that the VAST-MAJORITY of people in the Russian Empire, at that time, were still peasants? Urban and semi-urban workers BARELY made up 5 or 10%, I think? And then there's the "SR split" excuse. MLs, oftentimes, will say that, because, just before the election, supposedly the Right and Left SRs "split up for good", therefore, the votes done during the election- when the 'split' wasn't formally 'made known' on ballots and the like done during the election- therefore, the results should be counted as though the Left SRs were "functionally Bolshevik", in effect, I think, giving the Bolsheviks the 'plurality' in the election. but.. is this REALLY a convincing argument... or yet-another 'tankie' excuse to justify the Bolsheviks *real* 'lack of support' from most Russian-Empire residents, in the end? I wonder... Yes, many Left SRs, to some degree, were technically "very-aligned with" the Bolsheviks on a lot of matters, but.. they were by no means "unanimous supporters" of the Bolshevik program. And they SURELY would not have supported so-called 'dekulakization' in the early 1930s Hell, w/ the establishment of the Soviet Union and then, eventually, the so-called 'supreme soviet', it seems CLEAR to anyone who's done actual research on the origins of the USSR that, at best, the early USSR leaders- esp. folks like Stalin- essentially "hijacked" or "appropriated" the legacy of the term "soviet" for THEIR OWN ENDS, which were far different and *far less democratic*, in the long run, than, say, the Petrograd Soviet, pre-OR, likely was. The Supreme Soviet, as we've known for decades, was little more than a 'rubberstamp' on the Politburo and EXECUTIVE, esp. under Stalin! And what few "CPSU soviets" remained at local or 'provincial' levels after the 1920s and 30s likely were nowhere near "as democratic" as before the 1917 Revolutions. w/ the "true", pre-Lenin soviets... The CPSU, from very-early on, hijacked the "calls for democratization and freedom" to their own ends and their own, paternalistic view of "what the people want" or "what the people need", within a degraded, limited view of "socialism."
It is always interesting how many Cold War narratives relate the Brezhenev Doctrine as the start of interventionism when in fact Stalinalization of the different Communist Parties was the first steps that would take fruit in 1945. Where the tacit consent took the form of tough policies needed for reconstruction but backed up with Soviet troops. It could be said the purification of different CPs in Eastern Europe was a form of intervention by "other means".
Tankies gonna tankie. Great episode! Keep up the great work deconstructing both sides of the propaganda war. The First Cold War might be over, but the politically motivated cynicism and whataboutism live on.
Since it was an empire ruled by a party oligarchy does that also mean it wasn’t really communist? It wasn’t a workers state beyond nominally and rhetorically.
Not even Soviet propaganda claimed it was communist. Communism was the goal, but it actually described itself as socialist. The "Communist" in most communist party names is an aspiration, not a claim of having achieved that in a Marxist sense. Communism is a stateless society, according to Marx, which is the goal of socialism. In practical terms, it helped the Soviets claim a bright future that justifies the sacrifices of the present and hold onto power.
Depends on how narrowly we define Communism. There are legitimate differences between Marx and Lenin, but I do think that they are not sufficient to make the Soviet Union "not Communist". The USSR was, for most of its existence, varying degrees of Communist in the ideological sense of the word. Communism calls for a revolution followed by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" a government which would defend against "reactionists" and "counterrevolutionaries" and be given the power to reshape society into a classless utopia, which is the "real communism" people talk about. The possibility of this becoming a one-party state was raised to Marx and Engels who dismissed such claims. As Engels once wrote "either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction." This is how the Soviet Union viewed itself, as the vanguards of a movement that would overturn the world order. There's not much room for doubt and concepts of individual liberty that got in their way are clearly tools of the elites they seek to overthrow. Once the old world order has been destroyed, then they can consider dismantling their authority when they feel it's safe. So, yes, it's a hypocrisy, but a hypocrisy based on a Marxist worldview.
@@MatthewCampbell765 Communism, for Marx AND Lenin was the stateless, classless society where money is obsolete. Lenin tried that with his "war communism" and failed. The Soviets never claimed to have reached Communism in the social form, but rather socialism, i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat, with the party as the vanguard and socialized means of production. Communism would be the goal for the future, when party amd stat wouldn't be needed. We call them communists as that was their goal and the polilitical ideology (as in socialism paves the way to communism).
@@rlosableI did gloss over that but did mention it a bit when I talk about the "real communism" as the classless society. Generally, though, I think it's more useful to use the term "Communism" to refer to an ideology rather than a status of economic organization.
@@ГригорийШумилов-ф5рthe USSR was racist against non-Russians (Russian chauvvanism). Stalin was racist against his own Georgian people as well as Jews, Ukrainians and Poles among others. Molotov wasn't keen on Ukrainians too.
@@blitzerblazinoah6838 It's so funny 'cause you said by yourself - Stalin was a georgian and he was the General Secretary. Nikita Khrushchev was the General Secretary too and he was an ukrainian. Andropov was the General Secretary, but he was Jewish. It is simple proof of internationalism in USSR and any word against it is nonsense. If you had some proofs...
@@ГригорийШумилов-ф5р you'd be surprised how many people would turn on their own. Just look at how today's corrupt Western establishment is plotting the subjugation and extermination of their own native populations.
It's not terribly often you get a video looking to break down the semantics of an oft-used but often poorly defined term like "empire." Thank you for the interesting thoughts on the subject. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Tsarist Russia was an Empire, it was transformed into the USSR which inherited many of its parts. How could it be anything else than an Empire? The State of Russia held supreme power over the other republics in the union, and occupied countries outside its borders.
I agree, but I don't understand one thing. You've said that one can make a fair argument that USA is an empire - so why did you say that USSR "collapse in 1991 might have been the end of the last empire on Earth" when USA existed during that time? And what about China?
I'm not sure how contemporary historians view this, but when I studied Communist states in the 80's for my degree I found it fascinating that economically the USSR could be characterised as "Reverse Colonialist". Whereas colonial powers stripped their subject domains of raw materials and than exported finished goods back to them, the USSR via COMECON did the opposite ie exported raw materials (especially oil) at low prices and then provided a market for often pretty shoddy finished goods from the Eastern Bloc countries. No doubt politically and culturally the USSR behaved like an empire, but economically the picture is less easily defined.
EVERYONE (including you) needs to read Walker Connor's uber classic "The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy." You are covering well traveled ground here. Most experts on imperialism and colonialism would not even consider this a subject of debate...and yes, just like the USSR and China, the USA (along with Australia and Canada) is considered by experts on the subject as being one of the world's currently existing "land empires." Again, not really that controversial, nor really a subject of debate.
"what aboutism is the last refuge of those who have no real argument to make."
Damm. Bravo man. Bravo
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes. Absolutely yes. How is that even a question?
If the US is an Empire then the USSR definitely was an Empire (I think both are Empires)
"You were the Marxist state! It was said that you would destroy empires not join them! Bring socialism to the world! Not lead it into darkness!"
- Obi-Lenin Kenobi addressing the USSR.
lenin was a bolshevik jew who hated Russians for being devout orthodox Christians
that's why he is in hell now, womp womp
Lenin was just as evil
It’s more Darth Lenin and Sithstalin
@@chedabu I'd say Lenin was the only true communist ever.
Socialism lead people in darkness
I hate when people use whataboutism. It is the most frustrating thing to deal with when someone is debating you. I mean at least my government lets me complain about it without having to worry about being thrown in prison or out a window.
Whataboutism is frustrating but in many cases it does serve a purpose against hypocrisy. If I accuse you that your shit smells horrible and you tell me "everyone's shit smells horrible even yours" I cannot use "whataboutism" as an excuse because I was a hypocrite accusing you for something everyone does.
Lol, defenestration, or, as the Russians put it, fell out of window.
@@tungsten2009That's not a russian term.
@@Alex-lg6nz the joke here is that defenestration means to be tossed out of window. the Russians put it more euphemistically
@@tungsten2009 i know what it means. I just don't understand where the joke is.
If the successor state to an empire violently occupies the same territory as the empire and imposes its style of government over those areas that's a pretty good sign that it's operating as an empire
Did you realize that your mouth farted? Your conclusions can be applied to almost any country
@@FufuFufy-df8pknot really. For example, the USA did not invade France when De Gaulle hosted Kruschev withball the cerimony, pomp, etc. Neither did invade or occupy Sweden while their government was helping diplomatically and financially Ho Chi Minh by the times of Vietnam War. Can't say the same about Hungary in 56 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. The America exerted an imperial more in Central America, closest to that of the Soviets in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
For America, the European space was not important, so it was less aggressive than the Soviet Union, which needed it out of fear of internal opposition (in Poland, for example, there were Ukrainian terrorist groups, which Stalin feared until his death) As a result, the Soviet Union tried in every way to supress every Eastern European country
People forget, however, that they know how to make the United States worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything from its paranoia before communism, even if it is not; People forget, however, that they know how to make the US worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything out of its paranoia before communism, even if it is not necessary;
Yeah both countries are Empire
For America, the European space was not important, so it was less aggressive than the Soviet Union, which needed it out of fear of internal opposition (in Poland, for example, there were Ukrainian terrorist groups, which Stalin feared until his death) As a result, the Soviet Union tried in every way to supress every Eastern European country
People forget, however, that they know how to make the United States worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything from its paranoia before communism, even if it is not; People forget, however, that they know how to make the US worse about their ideals, knowing not only how to be brutal in a neighborhood in Latin America, but killing everything out of its paranoia before communism, even if it is not necessary;
Yeah both countries are Empire
@@FufuFufy-df8pk who did the Bahamas conquer? plenty of successor states to empires have been well behaved on the international scene, and relatively democratic as well. the USSR is not one of them.
As a Poli Sci major, I would love more episodes exploring the political and governmental structures of the various Marxist-Leninist and/or post-colonial states. Great episode!
Polisci 👮♀️
As a bee keeper, i would also like that....
Poli Sci major here also. I concur. I would love to hear the specifics of the Soviet government structure. Moreover, I would love if Soviet federalism was discussed/ analyzed.
Hey, Pol Sci major here too.
Wasn't it obvious to you guys that it was an Empire?
Aspirations in becoming a massmurderer?
I have never realized that the imperial status if the USSR was being questioned
In that sense, could you do a similar video but for the USA and China, those requiere more analysis, USSR was too easy xD
The US was an empire but post ww2 we coughed up what was left of our empire.
@@Denozo88 not really tho, most of latin america would disagree
@adinarapratama5607 Influence and meddling without actual land control and physical government control is not the definition of empire. If that were so every nation is an empire to a degree. Find me a stronger concrete definition please.
@@Denozo88I’d disagree I believe the US would still count as an Empire as we control Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands and have a large hand in the existence of the nations close to the US and will overthrow systems dangerous to the US goals with ease. The US is still an Empire
@@weirdestpersonguaranteed2244 I disagree with what you count as colonial territory. So I think your dead wrong.
🇺🇸 may not be perfect but hey, I can politely insult and despise America without having some FBI guy knocking at my door to beat the crap out of me. Can I do the same in 🇷🇺? Or 🇨🇳? We really need to tell ourselves “could’ve been worse” sometimes...
Btw I’m from 🇪🇺
ask julian assange about that
I find that whataboutism is often invoked by people determined to not face their own hypocrisy, as a side-comment towards the last bit. Not in this case, though, I think it was a fair and balanced video.
Anyway, of course the USSR was an empire, that shouldn't even be up for debate. Signed, a citizen of a nation under the thumb of the US.😉
What nation would that be
@@robertortiz-wilson1588every single one on earth lol
@MeikaiX better 🇺🇸 than 🇨🇳 or 🇷🇺
@@currypablo how about we have true democracy so people can pick who they want to associate with around the world
Texas?
I don't see how the USSR and USA wouldn't self-evidently be considered empires. They even both checked off the "catastrophically unsuccessfully invade Afghanistan" bingo square.
Multiple empires have conquered and held Afghanistan across history. Enough of this bullshit.
Even if USA projects power (a lot) it does not directly govern any land or people other than the American population. You can hardly think different states with same culture, population ethnicity, equal rights and representation as parts of an empire. Soviet Union (and Russia) directly annexes territories. US'A only affects their policies.
@@menninkainen8830I mean did the US invade Mexico and all the native nations during the 19th century?
@@menninkainen8830the term “empire” seem to me an ambiguous word
@@menninkainen8830 USA has many times done coups and directly military action against sovereign nations and put their own puppets in place so that those countries act as their vassal states. It also weaponizes international institutions like the world bank and the UN against other nations to force them to submission. America is definitely an empire
Not really much of a criticism, but when mentioning territorial expansion under Stalin you forgot to mention the Baltics.
Keep up the great work :D
Which is ironic because the Baltics suffered way more imperial and aggressive Soviet rule than other Eastern European states, including the former-Nazi East Germany.
Not surprising given the channels history of presenting a pretty sugar-coated version of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states.
@@worldinsights930 The Baltics even today are barely populated. Russia bought these territories in the 18th century.
@@Vonstab The Baltic states became states only 20 years before this "occupation", before that they were Russian for 200 years and before that Swedish or Teutonic. You can see how no one regarded them as "real" countries.
Not to mention the absolutely disgusting anti-semitism in that region. First part of Europe to be declared free of Jews under the Nazis. This was only possible because the locals helped enthusiastically.
@@chepushila1 it's funny how you point out the antisemitism in the Baltics in order to de-legitimize them and later you point the "purchase" of the Baltic lands by the Russian Empire, which was, until their doom in 1917, the most anti-semitic and jew-hating place on Earth.
The definition of an empire has changed massively from say Empires 2000 years ago to what was the British Empire of the 1800's and what is arguably, the American one of today. They just are not the same things but they existed. I don't really like those definitions presented, they seem to suggest that an elected government cannot be an empire since they don't rule over others, the UK parliament held power over the queen/king by the 1800's when everyone agrees the British Empire ruled 1/4 the planet directly. And the US had an actual old school type of Empire by the early 1900s ruling over the Philippines and Cuba/Puerto Rico as a democracy.
Great video though, gives a lot to thing about. Would like more like this.
Another empire that was a monarchy, then a republican non autocratic empire was the French colonial empire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#First_French_colonial_empire 1534-1980.
Yes. It held power over nations outside its borders. Exported its culture to these nations. It became the same thing that the Bolsheviks claimed to be opposed to.
Can you give an example? There is no truth in the video; in every region of the USSR, there was an imposition of the native language, culture, etc.
@@FufuFufy-df8pk The Baltics, where, despite most of the population being either Latvian, Estonian or Lithuanian, the Russian migrants hold most managerial/strategic positions in industries. For example, in the heavy-earth industry high-paying jobs were almost exclusively allocated to Russians. Not very different from what the British did to India, actually.
@@worldinsights930 Or maybe they occupied these places because the locals didn’t know how to do anything? The Baltic states were an agricultural country before the USSR, under the USSR it was an industrial country, and now it is again an agrarian country, all factories there are closed, nuclear power plants do not work either. they live only on EU subsidies
@@FufuFufy-df8pk Oh boy I sure do wonder why the baltics weren't developed in the 30's. Absolutely nothing to do with being under the oppressive rule of the Russian empire just a decade prior. Let us also ignore the extremely fast development and improvement in quality of life, education and infrastructure in Estonia after the curtain fell. Sure, some of that is due to subsidies but I'd hardly call that "living only on subsidies".
@@HYPER-FREEZER What Development? example? a large plant that was built by the Estonians, at least give something as an example.
The founders of the Soviet Union meant to create this ideal socialist world, but they fell back on the imperial model that they were familiar with. It was just as authoritarian as the Russian Empire before it. After the fall, Russians experimented with democracy for the first time in their entire history. It failed. Then they once again fell back on the imperial model. And here we are in modern times with Putin as the current czar.
They didnt just "fail" but rather socio-economic conditions of Russia never gave ability to democratic system under central plan to exist, untill late 1980s. Developed socialism is impossible without automation of Bureaucracy by computers. But at that time In USSR the top of "Communist" party has already degraded into elitism so they just wanted to turn back capitalism so that thy would have economic benefits of their position in society so they rejected idea of OGAS(National Automated System for Computation and Information Processing).
Something like OGAS was being implemented in Salvador Alliendes Chile called CyberSyn. But this experiment was stopped by a counter-revolution backed by CIA.
@@Project_Amirani
Which turned out to be a good thing in the end as post-Pinochet Chile is now one of wealthiest countries in Latin America.
@@shauncameron8390 "Wealty" doesnt mean that said wealth is redistributed according to Labour. Not to say anything about redistribution according to needs.
Empire of evil.
Russia continues to be a colonial empire
True about the whataboutism thing. Like whenever you start talking abt Ukraine, there are dozens of comments on "what about Iraq?". Like how do you even know if i support US foreign policies?
I completely agree, imperialism, in any shape or form, is equally bad
Yes, Soviet Union was an Empire.
Correct. I’m here solely for the Tankies to tell us that “socialist states can’t be empires”. 😂
As an anarchist i do agreed
Russian Empire basically
@@brianbelgard5988 I would prefer it if you actually listen to other people's opinions rather than assuming what they would say in a way that Mis characterises them and shows your own biases. I don't know anyone that would say socialist States can't be Empires because it's the division in power within an Empire's territory that determines whether it's an empire or not rather than the economic systems it operates by. Please think before you say
@@adrianbattersby4791 Marxist Leninists absolutely believe that socialist states can’t be empires. They’re a minority among socialists, but Tankies 100% believe this.
Good to annoy the tankies on this but the USA’s actions are clearly imperial in many cases too and should be examined.
Oh man you're going to be flooded with angry communists in the comments
Nope most modern communist don't like the USSR or other authoritian " socialist" countries
In my opinion, The Soviet Union was a empire in the same sense that North Korea is a republic. Meaning that de facto we all know the Soviet union was a expansionist entity, same as the empires that came before it although operated as a de facto federal communist republic, which it wasn't because Moscow always had the final say about it's internal republics and satellite states. and just to compare North Korea is a de facto hereditary monarchy that de jure operated as a republic, which it isn't, since power in the country remains in the hands of the Kim family.
The internal logic isn't consistent there, so I think you misspoke a word. Soviet Union can't be to an empire as North Korea is to a republic if your arguments are that the Soviet Union really was an empire, but North Korea was not a republic.
I think what you meant is that the Soviet Union was an empire in the same sense that North Korea is a dictatorship.
complete bullshit. I suggest you to find out what was(and most important) from where appointed second secretary of party (spoiler alert, it was always Moscow de facto gubernator).
secondly, it is only logcial that Moscow didnt decided each affair in countries, but not because it wasnt empire, just because it wasnt worthy its attention.
And dont forget russification policy of russia. On paper is one thing (all equal) on street you would see completely different thing. You could live in Latvia knowing only russian languageand be okey, but not vice versa with latvian language.
so is NATO an empire too?
I had similar thoughts -- that was completely incoherent@@DrVictorVasconcelos
@@andrisorlovskis4039 agree, USSR was as much a federation as already mentioned North Korea is a republic. While officially it was a federation, it was de-facto a unitary state, divided into regions, because none of them had any kind of autonomy and self-governance. All laws, regulations and decisions were passed on from Moscow, or at least with its intervention.
Modern Russia is a colonial power that hasn't lost its colonies yet. Change my mind.
Then muricans are ordinary thiefs since Alaska is Russian. Otherwise frauds for paying way less then it is worth
They lost those in Central Asia and Europe. But still has Tatarstan, Chechnya and most of the Siberian nations and tribes.
Not to mention Ukraine. Although Putin seems to be biting on a bit more than he can chew.
It's not our responsibility to fix your ignorance. If you're too lazy to help yourself, than that's your problem.
@@Alex-lg6nz If this provokes you then you clearly care about this. To not act upon what you care about is therefore an act of cowardice.
@@erikthomsen4768 I don't care what you think about me. I know who I am, regardless of outside opinions of me.
If you are truly interested in something, very few things can stop you from gaining the knowledge you seek. If you need to be spoon-fed like a baby, then don't go wondering around on the Internet.
P.S. What provoked me, was disgust for you pretending to be helpless.
Was (and is) the US an empire?
I feel like people think that "Empire" is an insult so they just say "The US is an empire", or "China is an empire" or "the UK is an empire". I think 95% of people don't actually know what an empire is. They just feel offended so they call countries they hate "empires".
That really depends on how you define an empire.
Usually, a great power seeking to create or maintain its hegemony is usually defined as an empire
The USSR was expansionist and ruled over a number of what were essentially vassal states that couldn’t do anything without the approval of Moscow.
Sounds like an empire to me.
Almost all the republics of the USSR were not separate countries at any time.
@@FufuFufy-df8pkexcept they were after the fall of the Russian Empire. The Soviet Union reconquered were them. And that’s not even getting into the Warsaw Pact.
The Soviet Union was an empire.
@@baneofbanes These were not countries; after the collapse, some provinces of the Russian Empire were captured by criminals who were almost immediately destroyed.
@@FufuFufy-df8pk no they were countries. They declared independence and fought to keep it, and lost when the Soviet Union invaded them.
Cope harder
@@baneofbanes🤡
A good comment on the UK today. Still stuck in the imperial past when all the world was still pink.
Tankies and kremlin trolls punching air rn
I can't believe you made a video about Soviet imperialism and didn't even mention the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states...
You should first read what acupation is and then write.
They have touched on this subject already, so i dont think they are purposefully ignoring it anyway. You have to condense length of videos after all and cant cover everything.
@@Jyryp They mentioned attacking Poland and Finland and Romania, but left out occupying the entire nations of Estonia, Latvia and Estonia. Leaving their fate out of the story is just flat out evil.
@@eksiarvamus Well i mean, you cant cover everything like i said. Theres separate videos about baltic states, that they have done in past.
@@Jyryp mentioning a few countries and intentionally leaving out the most brutal example of Soviet imperialism is flat out evil. Consider especially that Kremlin propaganda is still denying the fact that it illegally occupied the Baltic states.
"What-aboutism' is the last refuge of those who do not have a real argument to make." - this says it all.
Is it not reasonable to ask that a person be consistent and unhypocritical?
It still doesn't resolce the point@@blugaledoh2669
I would disagree with that somewhat. Sure, sometimes "whataboutism" is a lazy cop-out. BUT, Sometimes people who accuse the opposition of "whataboutism" are simply using it as a gaslighting deflection fallacy when being called out in a "pot calling the kettle black" type scenario. Which, in a post Feb. 2022 age, is a very useful tactic since the west has a lot of answer for between 1991-Present as well but doesn't want to own up to any of that while slamming Russia for its abuses.
@@blugaledoh2669not if you're a Westerner and you're out of valid arguments.
Officially, no. Unofficially, the Soviet Union was absolutely 100% an empire.
Very interesting. I do believe the USSR was an empire, much like America was (and to be honest, still is).
Is
The USA is an empire? Hey, neat! Since all of our vassals are paying us tribute, that means I can stop paying my income taxes!
Oopsie.@@user0307
I keep on seeing this leaving out the fiction that Puerto Rico under Spain had enough autonomy to be an independent state. Show me how in 2024 not 1924 the US is an empire. No I will not consider a few sparsely inhabited islands and have strong diplomatic ties with nations to be evidence of empire status.
@@Denozo88 an empire doesn't have to directly control their territories you know? It could exert its influence over less powerful states, in America's case, the Latin American during the cold war
The US is still an empire until today, no normal nation would have military bases dotting the entire world, would it?
Don't even try to justify imperialism, not the American, Chinese, European, Russian, or any kind of imperialism in anyway, they are evil no matter how you try to justify it
@adinarapratama5607 Wow so tou can't give an actual definition that doesn't apply to most of the world and conflates influence with control. Secondly you are trying to go off on a red herring and say I'm justifying imperialism. On a side note when your nation needs help don't complain when the US says no but get mad when you lose as you say why didn't the US help. The hypocrisy of most of the world astounds me.
It was 😂
It started well, but slipped badly at the end. While your other videos have a certain tone of neutrality and professionalism. The way you narrate this video (using this historical theme as an excuse) seems directly aimed at opinions you disagree with in the comments, transforming what could be an interesting topic into something childish and caricate
I’d say it’s safe to say both the US and Soviet Union were Empires durring the Cold War, though they manifest differently. And the degree to which either is considered an Empire depends very much on your definitions of democracy and role both physical and economic power holds in legitimizing that democracy to the domestic and foreign perspective.
the CIA deposing democratically elected popular leaders in S. America on behalf of private US corporations to prevent them nationalizing their industry and using the profits to improve social relations in their poor countries
so yea the de facto shadow empire of US business interests that our tax dollars pay for.
Altho we always had oranges all year round because CIA kept prices low! reason why USSR didn’t have nice consumer goods cuz they wouldn’t take it that far
Ussr and us are both empires. Empire also can be democratic as well as autocratic
Just like Roman Republic..in name it's a Republic but it was already an empire long before Augustus
and China - Look how it treats their "Self/Autonomous Regions" and policies like Belt and Road...
Then there's UK which still holds small colonial holdings
and then France which exerts control over the economies of west Africa
Just empires with different skins.
@@m.a.118 agree with UK and France with their island holdings in Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans but differs on China:
1. Look how it treats their "Self/Autonomous Regions" - Autonomous Regions only means self governed by locals mostly but when any policies or actions conflicts with national security such as separatism, terrorism, collusions with foreign entities, etc., then it is the right of the sovereign state to step in. That is not an proof of empire,, just how most countries view on separatism on their own territories;
2. "policies like Belt and Road" - BRI is an economical + political global policy, but not empirical with any territorial ambitions. I believe you are referring to so called debt-trap diplomacy in which the prime example is the 99 year lease no Sri Lanka port? In this exact example, China secured a 99 year lease to build and run the port how they see fit but the land itself still belongs to Sri Lanka. Renting is not empirical. Plus China is giving 30% profits earned through the port back to Sri Lanka government. The Rent is contracted thus when 99 years is up, China can either negotiate for extension or not. Sri Lanka can either accept extension or reject and take back the land legally.
There is precedence such as when UK handed back Hong Kong's New Territories back to China in 1997 after its 99 year lease is up and China refuse to extend it. Portugal also handed Macau back to China after its 99 year lease ran out as it didn't try to extend it either.
But unlike these two precedence in which the Leases were signed by China via coercion (military), there was no such coercion from China to Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka didn't like the deal, it could have stopped it and turned to other countries like nearby India. It took China's offer because it offered the most attractive terms for best value.
Non Russians certainly thought it was....
USSR was an empire no Doubt, only tankies can't see this
But we have to remember that united states are pretty much an empire own their own right
So I kinda disagree with the phrase " the Soviet union was the last empire '' we still have united states and the Russian federation
Isn't France still an empire? And could you consider China an aspiring empire?
@@chaosXP3RT good points both!
I would add India if in future decide to project their political and Financial power around their neighborhood and the world
In one of my political science class, most of my class was stumped when I made a valid arguments that the US is under the empire umbrella. My professor was impressed, n he was a conservative leaning.
I'd love to hear/ read your argument. I, too, believe the US during the Cold War (perhaps even now) would qualify as an "empire", though more in economic terms than purely military ones. The USSR wanted everyone to be communist & speak Russian. The USA wanted everyone to buy McDonald's & have a Coke (& a smile). One dominated with the AK, the other dominated with crappy, sugary foods.
@@morgan97475but also bombs, and dont forget the coup d'état!
I would agree with you, my dear alex
Who asked
@@morgan97475 I primarily focused on military and foreign policy, basically erase “United States” give examples of military bases all over the globe, “defense budget” spending, and the constant micro managing a conflict to get an end result to benefit off of. I like to frame it as “putting the pill in apple sauce”.
empire
/ĕm′pīr″/
noun
A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
Photo at 12:00 mislabeled. Those guys are, left to right, Molotov, Stalin, and, I believe, Litvinov. Lenin's nowhere to be seen, partly because by then he was dead, though I guess they still could have pulled his preserved corpse out of its mausoleum. 😃
Russian Federation is still an empire… as well as the US 48 continuous, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, Etc
Come guys its literally in the name, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" that OBVIOUSLY means the Soviet Union was a republic, nay a union of them, and not an Empire. After all, what reason would they have to lie? Like the glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it's democratic it even describes it twice.
Or the german "democratic" republic
If Britain was an Empire with colonies with no political recourse then certainly the USSR was an Empire with the Eastern Bloc unable to leave its orbit and nationalities dominated by their Russian “big brother”.
Yes it definitely was, in fact you could even call it a colonial empire.
Could you please do a video about the 1957 anti party group coup in the USSR?
Please also do an episode analyzing the USA with the same criteria. That would be quite interesting!
True
The US is not an empire because a core aspect of being an empire is autocracy
@@TexasNationalist1836 So how is it not an empire then?
Doubt that. By their convenient definition, USA cannot be an empire as it never was under authoritarian rule
was thinking the same thing!
This is cool. Now do the USA
BTW no need to worry nobody is saying “what about”, there’s some really interesting topics to explore; the Philippines, Hawaii, PR, Diego Garcia, Bikini, Japan etc..
China would be fascinating too!
The USSR was an Empire in the Roman model. The USA was/is an empire in the Carthaginian model.
The Soviets brought as much territory as they could under their direct control, ruling with direct force and imperial dictates. The US allowed local elites to rule, using economic force and the occasional "regime change" among factions within those elites far more often than direct force.
Everyone goes for the Roman-Carthage model when that’s simply to reductive and frankly not realistic.
@@baneofbanes Not sure what you mean by "the Roman-Carthage model"; they're two different models.
@@lawsonj39 I mean everyone and their dog comparing every other empire rivalry in history to Rome and Carthage. Believe it or not but neither America nor the Soviets are closer to Rome or Carthage. The Soviet Unions sphere of influence for example was also primarily in the form of puppet and vassal states that they didn’t have direct rule over. Carthage on the other hand was also territorially expansionist
My point is I’m tired of teenagers acting like everything reflects back to Ancient Rome.
What an awful comparison. The Russians are famous for their naval prowess! *Cough* Kolchak *Cough* Baltic Fleet 1905 *Cough* Moskva 2022
thats new
The Empire definition is very neat under Stalin with one man rule, you have to stretch it a bit with the oligopic rule of the politburo after Stalin. Oligopic Imperialism maybe?
Hungary 1956. After that, the question was settled.
Depends. If you look at it from a Western standpoint, both the 1953 East German uprising and the 1956 Hungarian uprising happened in former Axis states. The Prague Spring was the first one that divided Western opinion and popularized tankies for all the wrong reasons.
Note that the Hungarian uprising was initiated by a group of Communist party-members, esp Nagy, a popular politician then. They wanted reform and more individual freedom for people, just as in Czech republic later. Both uprisings had not the aim of abolishing Socialism.
What-aboutism is a logical fallacy. Problem is there is more to human and social interactions than just Aristotelian logic, that’s why it is effective as a rhetorical tool, no matter the fallacy of it.
I think the "what-aboutism" cuts both ways in this instance. The motivation for the argument behind this video is to show that the USSR, a communist country founded on the Marxist political philosophy of Lenin, is guilty of the same imperialism as the US. It's as you say a fallacious counter-argument to Western Marxists in their criticism of the capitalist US's imperial actions. The several layers of what-about-ing that gets us to here means you're correct in there being more assessing social issue than Aristotelian logic
In Soviet Russia, the Empire is you.
Yes, it was an Empire, also an Empire of Evil
R U kidding ? No Question! Just compare a map of Czarist Russia and a map of the USSR, and they look like identical twins, don't they ? PS : Colonial Imperialist Empire, they both were!
I can hear the tankies screeching
Just because the Colonies were right next door, doesn't change the fact that they were Colonies. Russian invaders taking control, deporting people settling foreigners to govern and exploit resources without a care of the native peoples. Keeping control by use of violence, including Genocide and destruction of local Culture and Language.
The USSR continued this behaviour, including Genocide. As does post-Soviet Union Russia to this day.
The only real difference between Russia/USSR and European Colonisation of Africa is Geography.
Thank you for this Video.
Different ethnicities, limited self rule, different cultures, united by a common currency, common military, laws and justice system. Economic autarky is also an aspect of an empire as is a shared but not necessarily primary language. More important, you can't leave! Yes the Soviet Union was an empire.
Any multiethnic state pursuing the policy of economic autarky would be an empire by your definition. Actually, one can make the argument that economic autarky is rather a sign that a country is not an empire.
Then how did they leave, if they can't leave? 0_o
@@Alex-lg6nz Same as how all colonies leave their imperial masters; during a moment of weakness. You're not very familiar with history I guess.
@@Alex-lg6nz Oh nvm. I see that you're just a russian spam bot, judging by your endless kremlin propaganda and dubiously recent creation date. How's the weather in St. Petersburg Ivan?
I'd like to get my hands on the full sized thumbnail, looks amazingly dystopian! Well designed!
5:00 While it is true that the UK doesn't tend to call itself an empire anymore, under law the UK is an empire under an Imperial Crown.
Although this status of Empire predates "the Empire" which we usually think of
Ask the Baltics, Finns, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Romanians, Bulgarians, Central Asians, and Afghans what they think.
Finland was never under communism. Never a part of the Soviet union and never an eastern bloc country.
@@butterflies655
Despite the USSR's best attempt in 1939.
if it wasn't an empire,its constituent republics wouldn't have left.
If it was an empire, nobody would be allowed to leave.
@@Alex-lg6nz it was an empire. The republics left when it fell
@@marcobonesi6794 You're objectively wrong. It's all publicity available information. I can't force you to see reality, if you refuse to look. Your choice, I'm not here to waste time arguing for sport.
@@marcobonesi6794 Alex is a kremlin propaganda bot, look at his channel. Created a few months ago, devoid of any content and already with hundreds of exclusively pro russian comments.
Perchance. I don’t actually have much to say, but this is good for engagement, right? You do good work.
Soviet Union, the last empire on earth? The US is an empire! What about all those videos you made about Banana Republics and all the other places the US has "intervened" like the middle east or south east asia? Iraq, Afghanastan, Vietnam, etc? You don't have to be a proper dictatorship to be an empire.
If the chief determining Factor to what is an empire is if it's a democracy or dictatorship does that mean the British Empire wasn't an empire because it had an elected Prime Minister
That is not at all what he said. He specifically said that the form of government does matter exactly. Also the British Democracy wasn't universal, most peoples outside the UK had no voice in that parliament and could not chose to remain part of the empire or not. Wales had no autonomy and Ireland was... complicated.
Having multiple distinct form of rule over subjects is also a hallmark of mature empires, with some being eager parts, others more loosely associated and some being outright coerced into staying.
The Roman Empire is a great example, wgere the exact nature and form was diverse and changed over time. Many parts were conquered, some were jylust outright inherited when a king gifted his domain to the romans. Rome was an Empire long before it had an Emperor.
yep, same for the Third Republic in France
the vast majority of the people under control of the british crown did not have representation, either in the modern sense (universal suffrage) or in a more historical model (indian oligarchs did not have a seat in parliament).
I'd love to see a follow up episode on whether Cold War USA does or doesn't fall under this rubric. I personally lean twards "yeah" but could see where the voting process or something else keeps it out.
If you actually research how the us government and constitution and electoral college and voting actually works, you'd realize it's exactly the same as the soviets. Yes, the USA is definitely an empire...
Basically, the electoral college prevents the public majority vote from actually counting, its just an "advisory vote", only the electoral college electors, which are chosen directly by senators already in power, can actually cast a vote that counts, and they can elect whoever they want, running or not. Also, because of lobbying, the more money you have, the more likely you can bribe the government to pass a law, bassically its legal bribary. The fact that no term limit exists for the congress who passes laws is also bad because it allows corruption and career politicians, which should be illegal. The same reason the term limit exists for the president is why everyone in power needs them. Basically, only the rich 1% rules the USA just like the nobility in the middle ages of Europe. We're also a 2 party only state because independent parties are technically speaking legally not allowed to run, nor would they ever win against the democrats or Republicans, both of which are as corrupt as the ruling communist party in the USSR. Adding a second political party and a fake election system doesn't mean you're not also an empire.
I'd personally not call the US an empire as of right now. It has some imperialistic aspects to it in the way that it tries to funnel resources to itself from other countries by trying to impose "democracy" on other countries with puppet leaders etc. Today it's not as bad as it used to be. With that said you could argue the USA was an empire before the 20th century. Think of how small the country was when it was officially independent and then moved westwards until it got to the west coast. They killed or exploited I don't even know how many indigenous folk of many cultures in the process and they took massive amounts of land from Mexico. They now ruled over land with primarily Spanish speakers making the country multiethnic through conquest (the fact that the US was already multiethnic from old world migration is a different subject). They also had their civil war vs the Confederate states which could be argued to be a different country with different culture and ideologies that the US wanted to control (although that might be pushing it a little). While the US didn't have one sole emperor, as was addressed in the video, that's not a necessity and I agree.
I think in the cold war, it was just barely an empire by puppeting other countries and having a lot of power over those countries although ethnic suppression and resource funneling except for fossil fuels was in my knowledge not to the extent of the traditional empire we think of
@@harku123 Id argue the civil war thing is pushing it, the CSA was never legally recognized by the union as a separate entity, and other nations never legitimately recognized them as a separate entity. Infact, the “we’re fighting for states rights not slavery” didn’t start until halfway through the war, when the CSA was in desperate need of outside aid and was trying to get Britain and France to recognize them as a separate entity from the Union on the world stage, which would legitimize them, and make it not a civil war, but a war between a break away state and the original state. Since the CSA was never legitimized, it was never a real country, and was really only a rebellion. Plus, the union very much seemed like it was going to let the CSA be it’s own thigh, right up until the battle of fort Sumter. I’ve glossed over this heavily but, just my two cents on the topic
@@stuglife5514 thanks for your input, I do agree with you. The CSA barely had a government because they were working in the most important matters at hand, that was the war. I know I was pushing it simply by mentioning it. I suppose Britain was close to intervening on the side of the CSA which could've led to recognition but I know it never got to that point. I think the main idea I was trying to get to was that the Union was trying to impose its ideology on the south who would have rather straight up been a separate polity which imo is an imperialistic aspect. Again I don't really think the US is an empire right now, if ever, but I do think it has many imperialistic aspects, but where is the line? Probably differs greatly between who you ask
YES, according to this definition, the USA is also an Empire.
15:20
How so?
@@yunuss58 So, the response to logical and definitional consistency is, "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you." That's cute, but not especially smart.
@@chaosXP3RT I think Robert D. Kaplan explained it best in his article, “Supremacy by Stealth” in the July/August issue of The Atlantic. It's a very clear-eyed view of global hegemony.
Do a follow up video if the US is an Empire, I agree the USSR and even current Russia are empires, the latter a dying sick empire.
Yeah, a sick, dying empire that is desperately clinging onto its falling hegemony
Him just casually destroying tankies 🗿
I'm going to borrow that phrasing. "Whataboutism is the last refuge of those with no argument to make."
At this point we want to see "Was the USA an empire" next
When is the episode on Malta coming out? :P
Great episode btw!
Malta is coming out?
There's a reason why most people called Soviets for Russians. And many still think of Soviets as Russians. The USSR was a wicked empire, with Russia as the head. Moscow was the Capital both economically, militarily, politically and ideologically. Also largely culturally. A great way to study the Soviet Union is actually to watch their movies and tv-series. They do not have too much propaganda that is not easy to spot. Soviet films from the mid-late 80's are often really good - especially such films as "Heart of a Dog" or "Life of Ivan Lapshin". Mentioned films are actually critically looking at the history of the USSR. And in Soviet films there is always justice in the end!
Empires can be democratic, though: it’s just a question of how the core governs itself, though it may differ mightily from the periphery - France, Britain, and America are perfect examples of this.
I suppose it depends on how you want to define an Empire, but it's true that the United States, Great Britain and France even to this day are having interests in other parts of the world and sometimes they are willing to use force to uphold their interests.
Was the US an empire? I think maybe pre 04 July 1946 (Philippines independence)
But afterwards, I don’t think what we did to the Native Americans & Pacific Islanders & Hispano-America rise up to the level of empire. Plus we are a (flawed) democracy
The US is still an empire…
15:17 so I am assuming you will also be making a video claiming the US was an empire?
Yes.
I'm sure that if an authoritarian country acts like an Empire than it is an Empire.
3:25 British Empire
4:02 jepang is empire with 1 etnic grup 😂
4:11 and kingdom in India is not empire in nation of 2.000 etnic groups
Well considering that last statement of the video I would like to see a another video on how the American Imperialism looks in contrast.
🇺🇸
Yes, particularly since much of the export of American culture and American imperialist actions following WW2 were ostensibly because of the cold war and were varyingly the cause of and/or reaction to a number of the things mentioned in this video.
I would love if he addresses in a videob American imperialism
Leonard Shapiro's book Origin of the Communist Autocracy is a very-interesting "primer" into how, between 1917 and around 1921/1922, the Communists, upon taking power, practically "extinguished" all other official and formal opposition, as well as coopting the rest. To turn what eventually became the RSFSR and then USSR into a "full" one-party state
very-fascinating
Partly because of the "overly-legalistic and nonviolent" means by which factions like the SRs and Mensheviks operated- compared to the "more extralegal and/or violent" means the Bolsheviks were very-willing and -able to use to crush opposition whenever they felt 'necessary'- as Shapiro notes, there was little 'chance', sadly, of anyone with any "real power" to 'stop' the Bolsheviks from taking extreme power as they did. Hell, they even crushed ANARCHISTS within Ukraine and nearby areas within Russia- the so-called Maknovschina and Ukraine Free Territory, I think- who decided to go against the grain and operate their own non-Bolshevik, "government-free" territories ("live and let live", so to speak). But... apparently this was "too much" for the Bolsheviks! Their egos and authoritarian natures COULDN'T HANDLE folks w/in the 'former Russian Empire' "not being part of the Bolshevik system", lol
Even if those other groups *weren't interfering with the Bolshevik project elsewhere (Let alone "wanted it to fail")*. They were just 'doing their own thing'
Of course, Marxist-Leninists who LOVE the USSR will come up with all manner of exercises as to why the Bolsheviks "had to impose" so much power over everyone else, esp. OTHER socialist and left-wing factions who wanted similar goals, but... at the end of the day, it's just excuses to justify one-party oligarchy, really. Hell, during the FIRST LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS, shortly after the Bolsheviks took power under Lenin, the SRs *won more seats*, in fact! And the Bolsheviks, in whole, got, like... only 15 or 20% of the total seats, I think?
..though many MLs will claim that "doesn't matter" because, supposedly, in 'the soviets' nationwide, Bolsheviks had a majority (if only a bare majority). I'll take point w/ at least a 'grain of salt' until further evidence that the soviet votes "represented proletarian feeling for sure." It *may* be true, but... even then, the folks *most-likely* to have voted for and/or attended soviet meetings and proceedings were likely *more RSDLP (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, primarily)-sympathizing* anyhow? Like, if the peasants weren't really "active" w/in or toward the soviets but did, every once in a while, *vote in State Duma elections*, whereas the workers in various cities *did vote for and affiliate w/ the soviets*, how do we "know for sure" which one was "truly representative of proletarian and 'common man' feeling", esp. given that the VAST-MAJORITY of people in the Russian Empire, at that time, were still peasants? Urban and semi-urban workers BARELY made up 5 or 10%, I think?
And then there's the "SR split" excuse. MLs, oftentimes, will say that, because, just before the election, supposedly the Right and Left SRs "split up for good", therefore, the votes done during the election- when the 'split' wasn't formally 'made known' on ballots and the like done during the election- therefore, the results should be counted as though the Left SRs were "functionally Bolshevik", in effect, I think, giving the Bolsheviks the 'plurality' in the election.
but.. is this REALLY a convincing argument... or yet-another 'tankie' excuse to justify the Bolsheviks *real* 'lack of support' from most Russian-Empire residents, in the end?
I wonder...
Yes, many Left SRs, to some degree, were technically "very-aligned with" the Bolsheviks on a lot of matters, but.. they were by no means "unanimous supporters" of the Bolshevik program. And they SURELY would not have supported so-called 'dekulakization' in the early 1930s
Hell, w/ the establishment of the Soviet Union and then, eventually, the so-called 'supreme soviet', it seems CLEAR to anyone who's done actual research on the origins of the USSR that, at best, the early USSR leaders- esp. folks like Stalin- essentially "hijacked" or "appropriated" the legacy of the term "soviet" for THEIR OWN ENDS, which were far different and *far less democratic*, in the long run, than, say, the Petrograd Soviet, pre-OR, likely was. The Supreme Soviet, as we've known for decades, was little more than a 'rubberstamp' on the Politburo and EXECUTIVE, esp. under Stalin! And what few "CPSU soviets" remained at local or 'provincial' levels after the 1920s and 30s likely were nowhere near "as democratic" as before the 1917 Revolutions. w/ the "true", pre-Lenin soviets...
The CPSU, from very-early on, hijacked the "calls for democratization and freedom" to their own ends and their own, paternalistic view of "what the people want" or "what the people need", within a degraded, limited view of "socialism."
All hail the Imperial Like Button!
It is always interesting how many Cold War narratives relate the Brezhenev Doctrine as the start of interventionism when in fact Stalinalization of the different Communist Parties was the first steps that would take fruit in 1945. Where the tacit consent took the form of tough policies needed for reconstruction but backed up with Soviet troops. It could be said the purification of different CPs in Eastern Europe was a form of intervention by "other means".
Tankies gonna tankie. Great episode! Keep up the great work deconstructing both sides of the propaganda war. The First Cold War might be over, but the politically motivated cynicism and whataboutism live on.
Since it was an empire ruled by a party oligarchy does that also mean it wasn’t really communist? It wasn’t a workers state beyond nominally and rhetorically.
Not even Soviet propaganda claimed it was communist. Communism was the goal, but it actually described itself as socialist. The "Communist" in most communist party names is an aspiration, not a claim of having achieved that in a Marxist sense.
Communism is a stateless society, according to Marx, which is the goal of socialism. In practical terms, it helped the Soviets claim a bright future that justifies the sacrifices of the present and hold onto power.
Depends on how narrowly we define Communism. There are legitimate differences between Marx and Lenin, but I do think that they are not sufficient to make the Soviet Union "not Communist".
The USSR was, for most of its existence, varying degrees of Communist in the ideological sense of the word. Communism calls for a revolution followed by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" a government which would defend against "reactionists" and "counterrevolutionaries" and be given the power to reshape society into a classless utopia, which is the "real communism" people talk about.
The possibility of this becoming a one-party state was raised to Marx and Engels who dismissed such claims. As Engels once wrote "either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."
This is how the Soviet Union viewed itself, as the vanguards of a movement that would overturn the world order. There's not much room for doubt and concepts of individual liberty that got in their way are clearly tools of the elites they seek to overthrow. Once the old world order has been destroyed, then they can consider dismantling their authority when they feel it's safe.
So, yes, it's a hypocrisy, but a hypocrisy based on a Marxist worldview.
@@MatthewCampbell765 Communism, for Marx AND Lenin was the stateless, classless society where money is obsolete. Lenin tried that with his "war communism" and failed.
The Soviets never claimed to have reached Communism in the social form, but rather socialism, i.e. dictatorship of the proletariat, with the party as the vanguard and socialized means of production. Communism would be the goal for the future, when party amd stat wouldn't be needed.
We call them communists as that was their goal and the polilitical ideology (as in socialism paves the way to communism).
@@rlosableI did gloss over that but did mention it a bit when I talk about the "real communism" as the classless society.
Generally, though, I think it's more useful to use the term "Communism" to refer to an ideology rather than a status of economic organization.
Communism is nothing but an utopia that will always end in dystopia.
yes, it was. Also, it was racist.
USSR. Racist. Yep. Old Goebbels is pleased with you.
That applies to every counties back then.
@@ГригорийШумилов-ф5рthe USSR was racist against non-Russians (Russian chauvvanism). Stalin was racist against his own Georgian people as well as Jews, Ukrainians and Poles among others. Molotov wasn't keen on Ukrainians too.
@@blitzerblazinoah6838 It's so funny 'cause you said by yourself - Stalin was a georgian and he was the General Secretary.
Nikita Khrushchev was the General Secretary too and he was an ukrainian.
Andropov was the General Secretary, but he was Jewish.
It is simple proof of internationalism in USSR and any word against it is nonsense.
If you had some proofs...
@@ГригорийШумилов-ф5р you'd be surprised how many people would turn on their own. Just look at how today's corrupt Western establishment is plotting the subjugation and extermination of their own native populations.
It's not terribly often you get a video looking to break down the semantics of an oft-used but often poorly defined term like "empire." Thank you for the interesting thoughts on the subject.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Cheaping out with AI thumbnails, are we
Anyone who says the SU isn't an empire is either a Russian bot or a tankie
Woot! Calling out the tankies!
Tsarist Russia was an Empire, it was transformed into the USSR which inherited many of its parts. How could it be anything else than an Empire? The State of Russia held supreme power over the other republics in the union, and occupied countries outside its borders.
Yes. Move on
The Soviet Union was a colonial empire.
Russia is still a colonial empire.
I agree, but I don't understand one thing. You've said that one can make a fair argument that USA is an empire - so why did you say that USSR "collapse in 1991 might have been the end of the last empire on Earth" when USA existed during that time? And what about China?
How is the US an empire?
I'm not sure how contemporary historians view this, but when I studied Communist states in the 80's for my degree I found it fascinating that economically the USSR could be characterised as "Reverse Colonialist". Whereas colonial powers stripped their subject domains of raw materials and than exported finished goods back to them, the USSR via COMECON did the opposite ie exported raw materials (especially oil) at low prices and then provided a market for often pretty shoddy finished goods from the Eastern Bloc countries. No doubt politically and culturally the USSR behaved like an empire, but economically the picture is less easily defined.
The bell button, our one true imperial lord and master. Duly pressed.
I just have to say it,
Damn that is some amazing artwork in the vid thumbnail,
is there any way to get it?
Yes. And russia by itself also.
It isn't
@@raidang is tha why they wage a genoidal war? Aimed at taking territory and subjugating other people?
EVERYONE (including you) needs to read Walker Connor's uber classic "The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy." You are covering well traveled ground here. Most experts on imperialism and colonialism would not even consider this a subject of debate...and yes, just like the USSR and China, the USA (along with Australia and Canada) is considered by experts on the subject as being one of the world's currently existing "land empires." Again, not really that controversial, nor really a subject of debate.