The Breakup of the USSR as a Major Progressive Milestone

A commenter questions how I can say that the breakup of the USSR was a progressive moment in history. But it was…

Rob, you once wrote that the breakup of the USSR was a progressive moment in 20th century history? How can you call yourself a leftist after such a statement? You do realize what happened in Russia and around the world after 1990, don’t you? Gorbachev was a traitorous, cowardly, slimebag on the CIA payroll.

I don’t think so. The breakup was not a progressive event due to the abandonment of socialism, though many seem to think that the project was not working out very well, so maybe the abandonment of socialism was proper after all.

The real way that it was progressive was in terms of the liberation of the official nationalities of the republics of the USSR. After all, nations want liberation. This is a longstanding Left position and demand from the anti-colonial movement on.

From the very start, the USSR gave the nationalities the right to secession. That was way back around 1920 or so. How many other states allowed such a thing back then? None.

So when those Republics seceded, that was allowed under the Soviet Constitution. How many states will allow their minority regions the right to self-determination in that way? Almost none. Almost all states ban the self-determination of the nations amidst their borders. If these nations decide to secede and exercise that right, the states react with fascist aggression. So almost all states on Earth are fascist in that sense.

Only the USSR and a few other states are or were truly non-fascist or anti-fascist on this most important question.

Other antifa states: Great Britain, Canada, the former Czechoslovakia. That’s about it, right? Can you think of even one more?

It’s unfortunate that the new republics went in a capitalist direction, but that was their choice. Russia also went in a capitalist direction, apparently a choice of the people. This was right and proper, true people’s rule and popular decision-making.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

27 thoughts on “The Breakup of the USSR as a Major Progressive Milestone”

  1. Rob, Yeltsin and his clique of Jew oligarchs were most certainly not chosen by the people to rule over them. Are you turning into a fucking Trotskyite?

    1. Well, didn’t he get voted in in an election? Haven’t their been numerous elections ever since, and have the Communists not lost all of them. The people are speaking. They want capitalism in Russia.

      1. Well his re-election in 1996 was rigged. I don’t know how you can mouth American propaganda when it comes to Yeltsin and his disgusting rule over Russia.

      2. I’m pretty sure Gorbachev probably was a British intelligence asset given that the reformers who were trained to collapse the post Soviet economy in Russia into the hands of British aligned Oligarchs. Plus the fact he is one of those depopulation Eugenicists advocates.

        Another good video from LaRouche.

        I consider myself an expert somewhat in this, well at least more than the average person when it comes to Russia and I can tell you Russians certainly did not support Yeltsin.

        They supported him first because Communism which was an anti-Russian coup and the nationalist revolution under Stalin when he tried to make it more Russian and create a Russian base latter demolished by Khrushchev, a Trotskyite and suspected British agent was the only non-Communist president at the time of the collapse of the USSR and with the engineered shock therapy by Soros and his Harvard advisors training Russian “reformers” under Gorbachev in the late 80’s in London, Budapest and Hungry colonised the country transferring funds into western banks in Russia to affiliated Oligarchs all of which have their companies based in offshore British tax havens lead by Lord Rothschild’s front man in Russia Mikhail Khoderkovsky who set up the rigged auctions who personally transferred millions of dollars to Khoderkovsky to buy up Russian oil industry and create the Yukos oil company. .

        Yeltsin got a second term in power because the OSCE helped fake election results like it did in Serbia and Yeltsin for even more control of the government made a deal with the ruling Oligarchs in Russia lead by Berezovsky who would use their media and financial power to get him elected for a second term to be put in positions of power who themselves would run the country appointing government officials, Duma representatives, etc.

        Communism was a fraudulent ideology with a built in defect an offshoot of the French Revolution and was not authentic like these phoney Soros/CIA coloured revolutions in Ukraine, Serbia, Georgia, etc.

        The Eurasian movement as a counter to US hegemony in Eurasia sounds pretty good.

        1. @Robert Lindsay

          “I don’t think he stole it. I think he just bought it. Putin’s elections have not been very fair either, but that’s Russia.”

          Putins elections are fair and generally popular, in fact there is more representation in the Russian parliament than in US political system representing nationalist, liberals and socialist. Communist party is still the second biggest in the Duma.

          Russia even allows the CIA through NED to finance political opposition parties and media in Russia through the Other Russia coalition lead by Kasparov.

          Off course he uses his media power to overwhelmingly promote his own party off so US/western financed political parties/Communists don’t block reforms in the Duma but the same can be said of the two/one party system in the US.

          Is there anyone in the US congress who isn’t Republican orr Democrat?

          1. I agree that the only problem with Putin is that he uses the media to his extreme advantage. OTOH, we have a controlled media here too. Other than that though, his elections are fair.

  2. All those republics were much better off under the Soviets than when they became independent. Just take a look at Azerbaijan, ruled by a corrupt CIA-supported gangster.

      1. How do you know they chose such a disgusting leader? And how are they independent when their leader is a puppet of the CIA?

        1. They had an election, did they not? And they elected whoever he is. Yes, people are so stupid that they elect CIA puppets all the time. They have that right. People have the right to buy the ropes they use to hang themselves with, and then do it. That’s their capitalist choice.

        2. You do realize Azerbaijan is authoritarian, right? It’s not like the Azeris freely chose and want to live under that disgusting cretin.

        3. The USSR was authoritarian too. I don’t know much about it. He was not freely elected? So what do the polls show? Do the people want socialism instead?

          Anyway, in Belarus they still have socialism, and they have a lot of socialism in Moldova and the Ukraine. They actually still have a lot of socialist in Russia, come to think of it.

        4. The USSR was populist authoritarian, whereas US supported dictators are elitist authoritarian. And yes, all former republic, with the exception of the Baltic states (fuck ’em) want to go back to the Soviet era.

  3. Rob, do you not realize NATO’s eastward expansion and its penetration into Central Asia and the Caucasus? I just don’t get you sometimes. Do you really believe that the world is better off being under US domination?

    1. It was good because of the liberation of the nations of the USSR. That’s the greatest anti-fascist moment in recent history. It shows that the USSR was one of the greatest antifa states that ever lived. The difference between the Left and the Fascist Scum Enemy is that we on the Left liberate the nations in our states. The fascist enemy just attacks them, represses them, forces them to assimilate and massacres them. Most states on Earth are de facto fascist, including China.

      1. So your definition of a Leftist state is one that commits suicide and allows the imperialist enemy to run rampant?

        1. What was the point of all the Five-Year Plans and industrial development if in the end, you’re gonna break up and let a bunch of crooks loot your economy?

        2. Not really, but nations have a right to be free. Anyway, the new states are not really under the control of US imperialism. That’s not so. They have a good relationship with Russia.

          If liberating the nations means the suicide of the nation as you put it, then, yes, that is the ultimate Leftist act. Or at least allowing your nations to liberate themselves. National liberation is not negotiable, and most states are simply fascist for not allowing this.

          For instance, the state that replaced the USSR quickly became a typical fascist state. Russia has been fascist since the breakup. Same with Azerbaijan, the Baltics, Georgia and Moldova. It’s really sad that whenever you have capitalism, you nearly always have fascism too, in that almost no capitalist country allows national liberation of its nations.

        3. Rob, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and the Baltics, not to mention Poland, are all in the American camp. Central Asia is also ambiguous. Again, what was the point of the development and the beating of the “Nazi Orcs”, as you put it, if the USSR was gonna dissolve anyway?

  4. Rob, when do you think America will go the way of the USSR? And considering China is facing acute security threats from America, are you actually suggesting that China let go of Tibet and Xinjiang?
    You’re coming across like a neocon when you say things like that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)