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.