I’m talking about their relationship with Africa. You were saying neo colonialism which the soviets did was not as bad as colonialism. I disagree. I shouldn’t have to say this again but this doesn’t mean I like colonialism. I think there should have been smaller states like within South Africa. Did the soviets exploit labour in Zim. I don’t know. I don’t have the information. Looking at Cuba I wouldn’t be surprised if there were uneven trade deals. Did the soviets fund a dictator. Yes. Did that dictator Kill more than any old style colonialist. Yes. Did he destroy traditional culture more. Yes. Did he disturb our way of life. Yes. This is common amongst all neo-colonialists. So don’t defend any white person dictating what we should do

Sorry your mother was taking longer to finish than usual

Always the biggest losers caping for Rhodesia

Not gonna engage with u if u keep being a f***ing manchild like this, not like you're offering any interesting perspectives

Block button feasting

Did you not read my post. Or are you just upset you are wrong. You were happy to say about reporting me but you can’t take any jokes. Lol

The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.

• Stalin

I fundamentally disagree. I don’t believe in any nation as large as The ones described. With far more local government there would be far more fulfilling lives than giant government. We disagree on what a nation should be. I am African so our diversity makes us far different than where anywhere else in the world would be. Im not sure about Europe. Why is revolution for its own sake good. I don’t care about the weakening of capitalism

If you believe in small government, why would You fundamentally disagree with the statement that even non-democratic movements fighting for independence against empires and imperial agendas is revolutionary?

Because independence is different in practice. Look at the ottomans. Not independent but local. Look at the Holy Roman Empire. We are using two different words to mean freedom

Those are imperialist and should be opposed

Actually this post really needs to be expanded on because you are not providing enough information for it to make any sense

Nah fr

Of course. But that opposition should not come from another empire. If another empire comes we should not support them automatically. We should look at whatever empowers us best. In the case of Zim what empowers us best was definitely not the soviets

waiting on big narstie to post the “i’m not gone lie i’m getting cooked” video

What makes the Soviet Union an empire

The word empire is not important Tomy argument. Imagine I said power instead

So you’re saying it’s objectively bad for independence movements to receive external support?

If so, How would you expect independence movements to succeed without international mutual aid when empires will happily pool their resources and set their differences aside to maintain their spheres ?

No. I’m saying they are neither good nor bad. They should be judged on the criteria I said earlier.
For example if South Africa wanted to subsume Zim today to give the lands back to its local people I would support it. Maybe a different SA government but id support the country. Capitalism communism socialism I don’t care

What’s the criteria, big government vs small?

Whether it preserves local culture

That’s what Stalin was in support of. He said that national and local independence movements against larger hegemonies are inherently revolutionary regardless of their political organization

The point is dissipating economic, and by extension, political power from being concentrating in imperial cores (UK, USA, Russia, Japan, etc) all the way back to the individual level that it originated from

If you want a really good read regarding the reality of his policies you should read his interview with HG Wells

Basically dispelled a LOT of fake notions in a swift back and forth response between himself and wells