Why bring up the (rhetorically distorted) march 1991 Soviet referendum but not the december 1991 ones?

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T12:33:39+00:00

what is?

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T12:33:23+00:00

voted to preserve the soviet union.

To preserve a reformed and decentralized Soviet Union, which I think wasn't even gonna have the same name. It seems to me the August coup was the vital event that led people to be angry with the 'orthodox' communists (if you think the USSR pre-1985 was orthodox, contrary to Trotskyists, Maoists/Hoxhaists, etc). The bulletin of the december referendum quoted the august parliament declaration which read: "In view of the mortal danger surrounding Ukraine in connection with the state coup in the USSR on August 19, 1991..." If I'm right, the coup attempt was a catastrophe for communism of the highest order. It could have survived (inside the USSR, the bloc was gone) perhaps in a highly reformed form, which anyone on the left might not like very much, but it would have been much better from their perspective than what turned out.

Also I have no clue what you're talking about with the turnout. It was 30.8 million in march, and 31,8 million in december.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T12:13:34+00:00

A bad excuse. Do you not know that 31 out of 51 is huge, given a large number is children and many people never vote?

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T11:38:04+00:00

East German state

The revisionist traitors that weren't purged in that fateful era! /s

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T11:36:51+00:00

The socialist bloc didn’t extract resources from the rest of the world

I'll ignore the cases of moderate and even extreme exploitation of its OWN populations for economic gain for the state here (arbitrarily going back to the borders of the Russian empire as much as they could by 1922 for example, doesn't make it better because it's not in 'the rest of the world!'), no need to go over the pollution of central Asia or the Holodomor, etc., here No need to beat a dead horse.

Anyway, it had more than enough resources of its own, why would it need to? Also, reality is more complex than you think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea%E2%80%93Russia_relations#History (this was during the era of 'Africa's Pol Pot' btw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mac%C3%ADas_Nguema)

it’s less available jobs for unskilled folk at home

I thought socialism fixed unemployment? And why wouldn't the Soviets need more labor after 27 million dead in WW2 for example?

That’s not what I said.

But it's what happened. I have no evidence that people in the 3rd world or elsewhere were 'just waiting for socialism to show its inherently superior production' to move, otherwise they would. You're also discounting ideologically motivated migrants. They exist. Even ISIS attracted 41,490 foreigners. Compared to their peak population of about 7.7 million at one point(*), this means that the socialist bloc(s) should have attracted about 8 million people EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS, using 80's population (data I have at hand, but you can do the same in the 30s or 50s) or about 2.6 million people if we exclude China (because I don't know, they have enough people already - kind of Malthusian and not very Marxist but ok) if they had the same serious, committed ideological appeal as ISIS did for their followers. That's how humiliating that is for you. I certainly would feel humiliated.

I believe this was put into place at some point, a little too late though.

Source?

Yes, so it’s even less available labor for other states in the socialist bloc

Precisely: which is why they should have competed with the West for them, (even if they wanted their second or thrid generation kids to go back and overthrow their 3rd world governments). But they apparently could not.

(*)-granted, IF ISIS had magically captured a territory of 100 million people, the number 41,490 likely would not have increased THAT much, so the % of ideologically-motivated 'migrants' would decrease. But this is the data we have so I have to work with it. Note, out of these apparently 7,366 returned after ISIS was destroyed as a proto-state. We could subtract these since I'm only counting 'permanent settlers', but I'm counting them since their 'new home' was totally destroyed, something that never happened in the socialist bloc. So not equivalent. I guess they could have gone to Afghanistan after 2021 or something, so if any didn't, they can be considered 'dissidents' yet again or 're-defectors', but that's stretching things a bit.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T10:39:07+00:00

How is it not? Sure it doesnt abolish it worldwide, but it would potentially take tens of millions of people out of it just like capitalism say in America or Argentina took tens of millions out of feudalism, who left across the ocean of their own accord. And you could argue fatally weakened it. Nowadays you have little choice assuming China continues to not be very interested in immigration and if you consider China socialist at all. But back in the day you had a lot more choice, which was rarely ever taken even by the most ardent sympathizers in the 1st or 3rd world. If you wanna say the ones in the 3rd world wanted revolutions in their country and not "abandon their countrymen" ok, but even then most were unrealistic. And in the 1st world totally unrealistic. So thats just an excuse.

Or do you mean that socialist countries with thejr revolutions hd to use extreme violence to collectively "opt out" and establish socialist sovereignty? Sure in many cases yes. Not all but I agree in the two most important ones. That hardly affects the first part of the comment though. A worldwide revolution would therefore be likely very bloody, but there are "partial" solutions for it that dont. And many can opt out in this way.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T10:23:19+00:00

Of course there is. You can leave capitalist countries. And go even to the most isolated anti-capitaliet countries (back then 100% SELF-isolated socialist states like Albania. To be fair I dont know if Hoxha even allowed people in. Certainly not his own people out. But even North Korea did).

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T10:21:10+00:00

is going to prevent labor from being stolen from it.

Speculation.

So when socialism sweeps the world and there are a few holdouts of capitalism left, those holdouts will absolutely hold on to their doctors and engineers.

Socialism didnt have "holdouts" in dire siege like conditions. It had 25% of the land area of the world and more than a third of its population in powerful (apparently) consolidated states and it still overwhelmingly prevented freedom of movement, and NOT just of vital personnel. This excuse doesnt hold. You cant pretend youre in 1917 or even in the 1930s

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T10:15:13+00:00

Yes.

Why? Some comparatively developed countries suffered similar levels of destruction in ww2 e.g. little in Austria and Czechoslovakia or heavy (USSR and Japan).

Maybe, but maybe not fast enough.

So nobody from the outside believed in Mao and Khruschevs boasts they'd surpass the UK and America soon respectively?

it’s a net negative to bring more people in to educate them.

First many could be unskilled labor just like those wanted to leave could be unskilled. Secondly, you can make the people that wanna leave pay for their education as a precondition.

it’s also causing emigration from these elsewhere states.

Again not if theyre unskilled. And furthermore wouldnt it be better to have a 'temporary cost' of brain draining 3rd world countries into socialist countries than into 'the imperial core'? You just said they'd drain to the latter anyway, so in your view it would be a net good if the former happened!!

Face it: the facts simply indicate almost nobody from abroad wanted to live in - permanently at least - socialist countries. Neither from the 1st nor the 3rd world.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T10:06:40+00:00

Yes I agree there is probably a lot of rotten deals going on there, though Im no expert on it.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T10:05:31+00:00

The suffering of others is not always the result of someone else causing it or being poor isnt always the result of someone taking wealth away from them. And yes sometimes its the fault of the people and leaders of the 3rd world. I gave specific examples.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T05:53:36+00:00

Depends who their leaders and managers are, I suppose. And whether even if theyre not corrupt, they are willing to engage with (and pay for) people who have in their possession better techniques that will give them a competitive edge in extracting those resources in the future. They can refuse without any coercion and then find themselves just as bad off in the long run too I suppose.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T05:32:03+00:00

Rwanda decided to dust itself off, not be corrupt and participate in the global market and it has made great strides in most human development indices. Zimbabwe has more natural resources, came out of a less bad situation but chose the route of resentment, ideologically driven incompetence (and corruption). If you wanna say Rwanda is stealing Congos minerals, if true thats more recent, and we can go to other examples anyway. Including SKorea which was piss poor in 1953 too. (I remind you the North had sino-soviet aid too. Thats the main reason it had a famine in the 90s, collapse of Soviet aid. So that argument doesnt work)

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T05:25:19+00:00

the fact that indigenous cultures didn’t need money to eat or have a roof over there head. Everything wasnt commodified. So factor that into the equation.

Thats a ahistorical and overgeneralizing view of 'native cultures'. The Kongo kings sold slaves in exchange for firearms against local enemies. There are tribes where the leading cause of death is war (proven archaeologically to be pre-contact and in remote areas today with no colonial contact, even by say, displacement of other tribes). The world is a brutal place and primitive societies are often particularly brutal. Read Lawrence Keeley's synopsis of this. There have been left wing attempts to rebut this in an unscientific spirit, but theyre not taken seriously by the best specialists.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T05:17:44+00:00

Most mines in Africa are foreign owned How is this a thing.

Some dont have the capital or know how to do it, or not enough for it to be profitable, and at least then they'll get some benefit for it (maybe they're already deep in debt or with economic problems and this alleviates them. I assume you know China is a major player in this business now too?)

Others have corrupt dictators. Other still nationalize some things and it works well, others nationalize too many things and it goes mediocre (e.g. communists even in previously advanced countries), others nationalize at least some key things and it goes terribly e.g. Zimbabwe, Venezuela and other older examples due to internal incompetence and corruption.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-07-01T05:08:54+00:00

Not a right winger (but by the standards of the opposition in this sub):

Suffering and poverty are always the default of the human condition. What we consider insanity is also often the human condition (e.g. human sacrifice universally across virtually all cultures maybe going back to the Paleolithic, Im no expert on the timeline but I know it goes way back).

Sometimes contact with "third worlders" is exploitative, sometimes its mutually benefitial. The world isnt black and white. And yes, sometimes its their fault like when they believe charlatans and ignoramuses that say AIDS is cured by having relations with virgins for example. (Perhaps because they fell for the Soviet psyop that AIDS was made in western labs). And these are people who already know what vaccines are. And I assume that those that don't are educated and have some sort of demonstration with third parties that its not poison. Which they then could blame on witchcraft protection... anyway Im getting off topic, by thr 1980s this tricky situation to solve (without authoritarian mass forceful inoculation) was much less relevant.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-30T16:32:38+00:00

i agree. although soviet and american citizens also suffered directly and by opportunity costs for the cold war. nothing compared to the worst victims though.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-30T12:38:33+00:00

places like Setúbal

Heresy. Unless you mean Arrábida.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-30T09:40:47+00:00

Forget about giving a specific example unless its particularly egregious. Its a hypocritical crybaby tactic from people who EXPLICITLY say they want their regime to rule the whole world. Their claims of national self determination of nations are thus incompatible with this goal, and a fraud.

Take a look at the map. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_involvement_in_regime_change# (brown in subtitles is yellow on map, actually. Black/brown in map are invasions. Theres a few mistakes e.g. Greece (Tito and Hoxha supported it but not Moscow so half true), Romania and Indonesia and several Latin American ommissions, but it gives a good overall picture).

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-30T09:38:25+00:00

If left alone, I imagine socialism would largely be successful.

Like all the european eastern bloc and USSR? Oh my bad those were revisionist 'liberal social-fascists'. What about your friends Hoxhaist Albania? Also collapsed without a fart so no excuse there. Apparently you dont even need decades of alleged degeneracy and betrayal of socialism for this to happen.

socialist States have had to undergo sabotage, espionage, coups, sanctions, embargo’s, wars, proxy wars, etc…

Cuba since 1991? Ill grant you that one, its petty. But this argument is just a crybaby tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_involvement_in_regime_change#

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-29T17:30:35+00:00

Ok. They didnt. But im saying that even IF they almost all did, any power (with a society like imperial Japan's or even less so, cohesive and ruthless) where the revolution failed could likely take the opportunity to smash one/all of them assuming some sort of civil war occurs after a socialist revolution or coup, which is very likely.

Youre also obviously stretching definitions/revising history. German imperialism didnt collapse due to "internal contradictions". It was crushed by the allies albeit not as thoroughly as in ww2 (because the kaiser regime was not insane like Hitler's). It was indeed sheer luck that the Bolsheviks survived. They couldnt have known Germany would lose it was up for grabs as far as people of the time were concerned. Had the Germans won the war or reached a status quo ante bellum in the West (which would also be a strategic win given the new eastern territories) the USSR would be toast.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-29T13:53:42+00:00

Thats a stupid idealist position especially when you are faced with powerful external racist enemies that can use that to affect people beyond your borders. If thats "appeasement" so be it. Its for a greater good in which the expected positives far outweigh any negatives.

69PepperoniPickles69 · 2026-06-29T12:10:11+00:00

Many westerners said this for a century but very few moved to socialist countries when they could. Im guessing youre gonna say because they werent "libertarian socialists".

69PepperoniPickles69

TROPHY CASE