Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it involved repression of certain freedoms, repression of ethnic consciousness or of its manifestations, and other things that are associated with the Right. The old saying in the US, that used to be taught in college classrooms, was that it was so far Left that it was Right. In other words, the political continuum was not a straight line with Socialism/Communism at the left extreme, and Fascism at the right extreme; rather--the continuum was a circle, if you get the drift of that. But....maybe you wouldn't.
No it was definitely "left", in spite of all the *features* you list here.
Were the means of production removed from the private ownership, and the profits distributed through the government? Yes they were, so here you have the classical "left" Socialist government - far left at that.
As for the rest...
As idealistic as the "early Communists" were in Russia, building up different nations of the USSR, even adjoining the lands of industrial South of Russia to Ukraine ( in order to make Ukraine "more stable and independent,") the more they were promoting the "different languages and cultures" in Russia, the more it was becoming obvious that this was the future ticking bomb under the very foundation of the Soviet State.
At least obvious to Stalin, who, as you know, was not an ethnic Russian at all. Being left with the country in total ruin after the devastating civil war, he knew soon enough that it was not about the "Communist paradise" - the way Lenin ( and most likely Trotsky) were picturing it along with the "Socialist world revolution." There was no "world revolution" in sight; what was in sight instead - the brutality of collectivization of peasants and rapid industrialization. And the major driving force behind this industrialization were ethnic Russians ( add ethnic Germans and Jews there.)
The "minorities" - Buryats, Uzbeks, Caucasians and what's not, were still at the medieval stage of development. So in order to keep the multi-ethnic state in one piece, Stalin was promoting the "homogeneous" mixture of population as much as possible, while still preserving the borders of the original "native lands." Part of the minorities understood that Russians with their new, Soviet authorities were taking them to the next level of civilization, allowing them to join in, and to participate in the process. The other part was vehemently against it, and was severely dealt with first by Stalin, and later - by his successors.
This, however, doesn't make Soviet authorities being anything "right" on the political scale - they were simply pursuing their left ideas by the "practical means," dealing with realities that Tzarist Russia left them with. So the Westerners initially were not making any mistakes, considering the Soviet authorities as being "ultra-left," because that's what they indeed were.
The diabolic deceit came in place with arrival of Clintons - the "third way democrats," "neoliberals" or whatever you want to call them. At that point in time, part of Russians, supporting Clinton's/IMF policies all of a sudden labeled old Soviet authorities as "conservatives" and the "right-wing" ( precisely for the reason you state here,) while those, supporting neoliberal policies ( i.e. ultra-right, lassez-faire wild capitalism, all of a sudden became "liberals" ( and therefore - moderate "left" on the political scale.) This dangerous mess-up is still present in Russia, and with hatred of the disaster that the 90ies were, Russians still often use the word "Liberal" as a cussing word.
"For many years, Americans were able to look at Russia and its social and political problems and see a country stuck in the past, perhaps someday to develop into a modern country like the United States. But that’s no longer the prevailing attitude. Now, whether they realize it or not, many Americans fear that when they look at Russia they are looking at the future. What is most disturbing is that it could be their future, too."(c)
Last edited by Maksim_Frolov; 08-17-2017 at 07:44 AM..
"For many years, Americans were able to look at Russia and its social and political problems and see a country stuck in the past, perhaps someday to develop into a modern country like the United States. But that’s no longer the prevailing attitude. Now, whether they realize it or not, many Americans fear that when they look at Russia they are looking at the future. What is most disturbing is that it could be their future, too."(c)
"Military history is replete with stories of entirely new weapons changing history. In the First World War, the British and French were totally unprepared for machine guns and barbed wire, and so just kept marching into them. In the Second World War, the Poles faced the German mechanized Wehrmacht with horses. In the Third World War, the Russians sent silent cyberweapons to defeat an America armed for a conventional battle. The Americans never stood a chance."
"For many years, Americans were able to look at Russia and its social and political problems and see a country stuck in the past, perhaps someday to develop into a modern country like the United States. But that’s no longer the prevailing attitude. Now, whether they realize it or not, many Americans fear that when they look at Russia they are looking at the future. What is most disturbing is that it could be their future, too."(c)
And what was really there, the story as always is silent.
In fact, people just are not used to and do not trust the recordings through the site.
\Or 20 years there were no procedures or medicines. And then suddenly appeared. That's the excitement.
And what was really there, the story as always is silent.
In fact, people just are not used to and do not trust the recordings through the site.
\Or 20 years there were no procedures or medicines. And then suddenly appeared. That's the excitement.
What 20 years? Are you deaf or dumb? At 45 second old woman clearly says - When was it? Horror, horror... I can answer - never before russian occupation
What 20 years? Are you deaf or dumb? At 45 second old woman clearly says - When was it? Horror, horror... I can answer - never before russian occupation
That's it, people in the clinic and did not go. And then the influx.
What is this?
"For many years, Americans were able to look at Russia and its social and political problems and see a country stuck in the past, perhaps someday to develop into a modern country like the United States. But that’s no longer the prevailing attitude. Now, whether they realize it or not, many Americans fear that when they look at Russia they are looking at the future. What is most disturbing is that it could be their future, too."(c)
This is an odd article. It's based on an assumption that American liberals became wary of or opposed to Russia (or to you-know-whom, specifically) only since Trump's election, which is ridiculous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
