5 ms·

Well the Soviet Union was imperialism, wasn't it?

sofixa 5y ago
It was, in the end, even if it started as direct opposition of imperialism ( to an extent; export of revolution was one of the tenets of Lenin and early Bolshevism, and that might be considered a type of imperialism). However i think the author is talking more about the smaller Eastern European communist countries in general ( Yugoslavia, East Germany are mentioned), not the Soviet Union.
- Findeton 5y ago
  I mention it because at the end of his blogpost he says: "there will be no wars in Europe in my lifetime, and imperialism has been defeated. " I'll also point out that: - The imperialistic part of the USA is the socialist part of USA (which does exist and gets larger every day). - Empires are not economically profitable as a whole, only a few people profit.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Which part of the US is socialist? There is none. If you mean the army, it’s not socialist. The workers don’t have democratic control over the means of production. It’s just a planned economy, plenty of those exist in dictatorships of the bourgeoisie (like Amazon).
    - inawarminister 5y ago
      The most ironic part of the whole capitalism vs communism business was that both had exactly the same structure... In different strata of the society. The all-encompassing planned economy of (mega)corporations vs the state. Both the preferred habitat of a certain sort of politicking bureaucrat. Of course, in properly-functioning capitalist systems, you can and should fight and Ally with the megacorps with start-ups. In socialist countries...
- beerandt 5y ago
  >considered a type of imperialism Interesting to consider, as sort of a tolerance paradox.
ivan_gammel 5y ago
Does it really matter, given that it did not behave much differently from USA at that time, sending a lot of money as a foreign aid and intervening if local politics started leaning towards the rival powers? EDIT: to clarify, this foreign policy was not considered "imperialism" at that time.
dang 5y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and especially please don't take threads on predictable ideological tangents. They're tedious because they're so repetitive, and they usually turn nasty too. Not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It was, in the end, even if it started as direct opposition of imperialism ( to an extent; export of revolution was one of the tenets of Lenin and early Bolshevism, and that might be considered a type of imperialism). However i think the author is talking more about the smaller Eastern European communist countries in general ( Yugoslavia, East Germany are mentioned), not the Soviet Union.

Findeton 5y ago
I mention it because at the end of his blogpost he says: "there will be no wars in Europe in my lifetime, and imperialism has been defeated. " I'll also point out that: - The imperialistic part of the USA is the socialist part of USA (which does exist and gets larger every day). - Empires are not economically profitable as a whole, only a few people profit.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Which part of the US is socialist? There is none. If you mean the army, it’s not socialist. The workers don’t have democratic control over the means of production. It’s just a planned economy, plenty of those exist in dictatorships of the bourgeoisie (like Amazon).
  - inawarminister 5y ago
    The most ironic part of the whole capitalism vs communism business was that both had exactly the same structure... In different strata of the society. The all-encompassing planned economy of (mega)corporations vs the state. Both the preferred habitat of a certain sort of politicking bureaucrat. Of course, in properly-functioning capitalist systems, you can and should fight and Ally with the megacorps with start-ups. In socialist countries...
beerandt 5y ago
>considered a type of imperialism Interesting to consider, as sort of a tolerance paradox.

ivan_gammel 5y ago

Does it really matter, given that it did not behave much differently from USA at that time, sending a lot of money as a foreign aid and intervening if local politics started leaning towards the rival powers? EDIT: to clarify, this foreign policy was not considered "imperialism" at that time.

dang 5y ago

Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and especially please don't take threads on predictable ideological tangents. They're tedious because they're so repetitive, and they usually turn nasty too. Not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html