I'd have to challenge that "the bad guys won the Cold War" rhetoric. If the USSR was as successful as your argument claims, why did so many Soviet republics seek independence?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 minutes ago

The answer is that most didn't seek independence originally. The referendum on the preservation of the USSR, shortly before its dissolution, wanted it to persist. in looking at Soviet Nostalgia, most say they were better off under Socialism than Capitalism and say the dissolution was a bad thing.

If you keep going with Blackshirts and Reds, it gets to the events surrounding its dissolution, such as the botched coup attempt, liberalization in order to try to make up for spending so many resources on the Cold War, and more, though not a full picture. If you genuinely want to know more after you finish Blackshirts, I recommend Parenti's 1986 lecture, which is even more entertaining because Parenti is a fantastic and passionate speaker. I'd throw on Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? as an additional articls, around 30 minutes to read, going over the merits of the Soviet Economy and why it was dissolved.

All of that is well and good, but not enough to say that the Soviets were the good side. It's also necessary to truly look at how disgustingly evil the United States is, and for that I recommend the podcast Blowback. If you listen to Blowback, there will be nothing but hatred and disgust of the highest order for the United States, from lying about WMDs to thoroughly destroy Iraq, to dropping more bombs on Korea than in the entire Pacific Front of World War 2, to countless war crimes intentionally done to make populations suffer and no longer support their governments just to make it stop.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

For the same reasons California or Texas keep entertaining independence ballot initiatives every 4 years; internal politics.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The USSR’s republics didn’t just debate independence, they actually left. If it was just “internal politics,” why did every non-Russian republic take the first opportunity to break away?

The Texas/California comparison is a weak false equivalence. The USSR suppressed nationalist movements (read on the Hungarian Revolution), while the U.S. allows open political discourse.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

It's the only equivalency there can be between the two countries; unlike the Soviet Union, the United States was not formed by colonial absorbtion of neighboring nations. The closest thing there is, is the Mexican land grab in the 19th century and Europe has a long history of nationalist movements being suppressed, so the Soviet Union is not unique in that regard.

And, just like the USSR, the US has a track record of not allowing political discourse that threatens its hegemony; the Black Panthers, Pinochet, and Cuba are probably the most glaring examples.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -1 points 53 minutes ago

You're deflecting. If the USSR was truly a voluntary workers' paradise, why did nearly all of its republics leave at the first opportunity? You’re avoiding that question by pointing to U.S. wrongdoing, but the reality is that Soviet republics didn’t just ‘entertain’ secession like Texas, they actively fought for it and succeeded.

Comparing minor secessionist sentiments in Texas to the complete collapse of a superstate is absurd.