What you're getting at is more accurately identified as class struggle. There, over time, becomes a sharpening conflict between the revolutionary classes and reactionary classes, and this pushes towards revolution. Marketing pretending to support broader social change is a pressure valve for the system, one of many.
Kinda? Communism is about satisfying the needs of everyone through sound economic planning and collectivized production, what you are describing is someone getting vast riches for free just because they own stuff. I'm being nitpicky, I'm aware.
The Soviet economic system was federated and planned. The political control in Moscow wasn't absolute by any stretch.
The various Soviet Republics were not colonies, not by any stretch. Resources and goods were shipped around the whole system as needed, not just imported into Moscow.
There was no forcible cultural assimilation. There was a huge effort to cultivate a soviet identity, but there wasn't an attempt to erase cultural identity. The famine in the 1930s was caused by natural causes, not "demographic engineering," grain was re-allocated to Ukraine once it was known that there were famine conditions. There was forcible re-allocation of various ethnic groups like Koreans, which did exist, but this isn't the same claim you made either in scope or character.
So no. The USSR was not imperialist, not by the correct concept of imperialism as a form of international extraction, nor the vague "Soviet Bad" thing you tried to make it out to be.
The US is absolutely an Empire, it practices imperialism, by which it extracts vast wealth from the global south. The USSR didn't do that.
Further, I'm absolutely focused on economics. The Soviet economy slowed, but was still growing. The dissolution of the USSR was multifaceted, complex, and not boiled down to one failure. Further, its conditions are entirely different from the US, which is a decaying Empire, the fruits of imperialism are diminishing and disparity is rising.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, economics are core to my analysis.
The US has always been a settler-colony, but it became more Imperialist after World War I with the inter-ally debts. It became world hegemon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however.
The USSR wasn't an Empire, which played into that. Further, the reforms it introduced weren't because it opened up too late, but because they played against the socialist system of planning. The PRC's approach to economic reform retained full state control and is focused on unity, rather than disunity, which is why it's working.
No, Tattorack is correct. Material conditions decaying makes it easier to topple, but Materialists know that without the working class organizing and acutally overthrowing the system, it won't fall. The system still has to be killed and replaced, otherwise it will linger on.
Among other things, comrades in PSL reporting record growth, Mamdani winning ovet Cuomo, and a shift from a ~14 point favor to "Israel" among democrat voters in 2017 to ~57 point favor to Palestine in 2025. The rate of growth is high, even if the numbers aren't yet.
I don't actually agree with the theory of brainwashing, it's closer that imperialism and settler-colonialism contributed to a largely reactionary working class. However, now that conditions are deteriorating, the working class is still becoming more radicalized.
Communist organizing is increasing more rapidly than ever before, with the exception of the CPUSA back when it wasn't revisionist and had genuine backing from the USSR. I don't see a civil war, unlike the US civil war there aren't two competing forms of labor and production (agrarian slave owners vs industrialist bourgeoisie). I do see the US Empire collapsing, hopefully via internal revolution during crisis but it may be that the US realizes that trying to re-industrialize under capitalism while depending on the financial profits of imperialism isn't going to work, and instead takes on a more state capitalist economy like South Korea to force re-industrialization while maintaining bourgeois control.
I don't think the latter would work, either, mind you. The US is thoroughly subservient to imperialist financial capital, it has all of the control. Re-industrializing can't work when Chinese commodities are so much easier and cheaper to produce thanks to its advanced industrialization, the US would need to go into hyper-tariff, state planning mode and that would go directly against its current hegemonic position as a debtor country flooding the world with US dollars.
Honestly, I don't know. Decay is the only thing I can really see as nearly certain. I do think we are approaching the weeks where decades happen, as Lenin put it.
Yep, plus the DPRK has an interest in selling some of its missiles and getting troop training in a real combat scenario. The US isn't capable of sanctioning the DPRK any more than they already have been, so ironically this means the DPRK doesn't have to care as much how the west sees it.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
What you're getting at is more accurately identified as class struggle. There, over time, becomes a sharpening conflict between the revolutionary classes and reactionary classes, and this pushes towards revolution. Marketing pretending to support broader social change is a pressure valve for the system, one of many.