Both American and Chinese sources that I’ve read like to claim that the Soviet Union was an imperialistic, hegemonic power that wanted to dominate the world. Other sources claim that the USSR was more neutral.

Can you guys explain what Soviet foreign policy was like, especially how it changed over the years. (like how it changed from Stalin to Khruschev and so on.)

  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    1·
    1 year ago

    I’ve heard the same, unfortunately. These are common tropes but it’s mainly projection. While I don’t have any sources to hand, I’ll offer seven broad points that night help.

    1. Lenin made a huge contribution to the theory of self-determination, a key component of liberation movements around the world.
    2. The USSR’s foreign policy during WWII was straightforwardly one of if not the greatest foreign policies of any society in history: stop the Nazis and give control over neighbouring countries to their workers.
    3. The Soviets directly supported many liberation movements and revolutions. Including in Cuba, China, Spain. Western academic sources on decolonisation ‘explain’ what happened during this era as colonies being ‘lured’ by the Soviets into rebelling against the colonists (jfc academics!); so be careful with sources and claims in this area because once you look into it, liberal criticisms fall apart quite quickly.
    4. The USSR was always generally feared and hated by western liberals, but it was acceptable for western Marxists to support it. Until Khrushchev’s ‘secret’ speech. From this point, the western Marxist ‘Soviet narrative’ shifted. (Michael Parenti Quote.) So be extra critical of ‘history’ written about foreign policy after that speech even by comrades. Some were innocently misled. Some were never great Marxists to begin with. Others would have been waiting for the opportunity to knife the USSR in the back.
    5. Remember the need for a class analysis. It’s one thing for a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to ‘dominate the world’ and quite another for a dictatorship of the proletariat to do the same. So even if this is true, it’s not necessarily a ‘bad’ thing in the same way as it is when the US does it.
    6. The Soviets made mistakes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see foreign policy getting steadily worse until it’s dissolution. One error, for instance, involved getting sugar from Cuba, which kind of encouraged Cuba to adopt a bit of a mono crop economy. This wasn’t great at the time but Cuba was able to trade for essentials. After the USSR fell, the problem with the policy became clear, as it left Cuba vulnerable.
    7. Still, I don’t remember the USSR having an Iraq moment. Nor an Iran moment or a Kosovo moment. Nor Libyan, Indonesian, Chilean, Korean, Vietnamese (I won’t list them all). So if the USSR was ‘imperialistic, hegemonic’ and if those labels also apply to the US, I’d suggest that the words are more or less meaningless and we need a new vocabulary. But these words are useful – they just don’t really apply to the USSR.
    • RedBlackBeard@lemmygrad.ml
      2·
      1 year ago

      Afghanistan. That one was rough. Of, it wasn’t an imperialist invasion the way Western sources usually characterise it. The “Afghan Communist Party” (I forget their actual name) begged for Soviet intervention multiple times before they finally got it. When they did get it, it did not go well for the Afghans or the USSR. Of course it didn’t help that the USA pumped the “brave mujahideen fighters” full of weapons which got a lot of Soviets and set up the material conditions for a bloody civil war which led to the eventual rise of the Taliban. However I think there is plenty of room for some criticism on how the USSR handled that situation.

    • Parenti Bot@lemmygrad.mlB
      1·
      1 year ago
      The quote

      In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

      – Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

      I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.