this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
6872 readers
6 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The same as it was doing by helping national liberation movements in Vietnam, Cuba, Algeria, and more: trying to spread socialism and weaken imperialism, which is what was holding the USSR in siege.
Didn't those counties welcomed help from the USSR and the countries I mentioned not. What your saying just sounds like a different flavor of "spreading democracy" to me.
Germany was governed by Nazis prior to the establishment of the GDR. In both countries, existing communist organizing existed, and like with other countries the USSR aided them. The key difference between the USSR spreading socialism and the US Empire "spreading democracy" is that the USSR really did spread socialism, while the US Empire instead spread death and destruction to plunder these countries.
The USSR spread socialism by force though, did the not? Weather your spreading democracy or socialism, using tanks and violence against an occupied people seems bad to me.
Also, what about Afghanistan?
Afghanistan was invaded by western powers multiple times and USSR actually respected Afghanistan and formed diplomatic relations. But of course we can't have that so the US Empire through CIA funded terrorists to overthrow the government back in the 70s.
As usual it is your fucking projection that sees the USSR doing what your favourite western empire does.
Spreading good things is good, spreading bad things under the guise of spreading good things is bad. The USSR said they were spreading socialism and actually did so, the US Empire claims it spreads democracy but actually spreads genocide and violence, in order to establish imperialist relations.
Spreading anything by taking and maintaining control over a territory and its people is by definition, colonialism, is it not.
The soviets intervened at the request of factions in Afghanistan that had already taken power, though had not solidified it. They did not establish a colony nor expropriate wealth.
Just so I'm clear, are you saying a majority of the Afghan people wanted the Soviets in Afghanistan? Because that's not how I understand the situation being.
Also, was my definition of colonialism wrong?
The legally and internationally recognized government of Afghanistan requested the Soviets for help many times until they decided to help them out. Literally google it.
I think the dude is quite literally a descendant of Nazis considering his other post.
Sounds like at least a nazi sympathizer yeah but in case anyone else is reading it might help them learn more about the topic, which is very complicated ofc but definitely not "USSR bad"
That's not what I asked.
The legitimate government of Afghanistan requested support. Afghanistan had many factions and infighting, but the legitimate government specifically requested support, which the soviets responded to.
That's not what I asked though. Did the majority of the Afghan people want the Soviets to intervene? Its my understanding that most Afghans didn't want the Soviets there, given how they overthrew the government a few years after the Soviets left.
Was my definition of colonialism wrong?
The majority of Afghans did not want any one thing, it was highly factional. The government that invited the soviets in was a revolutionary government itself in the first place, from the winning faction at the time. Do you think the majority of Afghans wanted civil war? Without a clear majority, you have to focus on what's actually good and legitimate.
Your definition wasn't necessarily wrong outright, just not at all applicable to the soviets in Afghanistan. Your definition is severely lacking in the fact that colonialism is extractionary and set up for that purpose, for example.
okay you Nazi, you should go back to your Reddit home