/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

citations are also fake (russian wiki has them (you do know at least one multipolariod language, right?))

>Gorbachev literally started repaying tsarist debts to Britain and France
This guy had to be a plant

>>2661269
MLs and their modern father, Parenti, are still defending this guy btw

>real is not real cuz I don't like it
Many such cases in the West!!

>>2661260
Sure. As long as you don't need to borrow more money from the people whose debt you just cancelled. Or aren't crippled by trade restrictions from those countries.

Russia in 1917 was relatively self-sufficient and world monetary policy was still based on gold. The Soviets still struggled in the early years as they needed to buy advanced machinery from Britain/France/Germany/America. The Soviet expropriation was also the justification for the "interventions" after WWI.

>>2661269
No, he was a succ-dem and wanted to normalise economic relations with the West and liberalise the Soviet economy.

>>2661272
Gorbachev?

No they don't.

>>2661350
Parenti was literally sucking his cock until the exact minute the red flag was lowered

You'd do the same if you were there at the time since you're socdems with no relation to Marx

>>2661370
>Parenti was literally sucking his cock until the exact minute the red flag was lowered
Irrelevant as Parenti isn't the leader of all ML groups or even an important theoretician.

>You'd do the same if you were there at the time since you're socdems with no relation to Marx
There were plenty of MLs who broke with the Soviets back with Khruschevs revisionism, let alone Gorbachev. Most of the Western "communist" parties had already turned to "eurocommunism" by the time Gorbachev came to power.

>>2661269
If Leftypol was in the 80s we would have seen some great copes about gorbachev
>"We're not weakening; we're democratizing socialism to make it stronger!"
> "Afghanistan was a military quagmire draining resources. Smart move."
>"Let the West inherit the economic basket case of East Europe lol."
> "We're infiltrating the global capitalist system from within."
>"By joining their markets, we will sabotage them with superior dialectics."
>"The Party is purifying itself by shedding the reactionary republics."
>"Gorbachev's plan was perfect, but traitors (Yeltsin, the generals) sabotaged it."

>>2661269
No need to be a plant. People are severely underestimating the massive inferiority complex people outside of the Golden Zone (North America + Western Europe) have with respect to the West. A mix of an inferiority complex and the need for approval.

>>2661260
Yeah Russian Empire was increasingly owned by foreign capital and debts. After the October revolution the allies plotted a takeover of Russia so they could get its assets. They were funding the Whites very early and trying to recover the financial losses. The White army infamously stole Russia's gold reserves in Kazan, much of it never to be seen again. It was pretty bad, everyone wanted a piece; Germany, Britain, France, Japan. Its territorial integrity didn't matter. Russia would have probably ended like warlord China or the British Raj. Maybe even balkanized into smaller dictatorships.

>>2661269
It's so stupid. If you're willing to pay tsarist debts you might as well ask the west to pay for all the financial damage caused by the allied intervention in Russia.

>>2661260
>you can just cancel debt
Yes. You can also unilaterally shorten or outright abolish copyright monopolies and patents.

>>2661346
>Sure. As long as you don't need to borrow more money from the people whose debt you just cancelled. Or aren't crippled by trade restrictions from those countries.
No, it is the correct course of action in general: Suppose capitalist countries owe your country money, and then you do a revolution. They certainly know how to come up with rules to freeze debt payments or to deduct some virtual costs you are "causing" them according to some voodoo accounting etc. In general, hoarding the enemy's currency is for fools. Even if they don't inflate the value away, they can and do unilaterally decide to restrict trade with you, to impose tariffs etc. so they can basically make the currency hyper-inflationary just for you while it is stable in the rest of the world. They can pull all sort of shit, and as a rule of thumb they will do. Gaddafi wanted to play nice with them, what good did it do for him.

>>2661504
>No, it is the correct course of action in general
No, it is only correct or incorrect based on circumstances. As I said before the world has changed. Most countries if they were cut off from international financial markets would either rapidly or slowly suffer societal collapse because they lack self-sufficiency and can't rapidly develop it.

You are posing it as if countries like Libya or Venezuela were too stupid to just expropriate everything. The reality is that expropriation rarely covers the costs of being cut off from further investments and loans. This is why a revolutionary base like the Soviet Union was so important. This is why any country which ignores Western sanction regimes is important.

Successful revolution is a matter of increasing the living conditions of the majority. If you can't do that then eventually Western propaganda will work its magic and a counter-revolutionary force will form in your country.

Yes

>>2661393
>"We're not weakening; we're democratizing socialism to make it stronger!"
A lot of people would probably fall for this. We have the benefit of hindsight of knowing the intentions of traitors like Yakovlev and others, because of their writings.
> "Afghanistan was a military quagmire draining resources. Smart move."
I defend the Soviet intervention. The real problem was the ultra left idiots in the Afghan government. If Afghanistan fell, it would ruin the USSR's political word to protect their allies, and communists who come to power.

It would also open up to US funded Islamic terror, in the Muslim majority Soviet republics. Plus. the war was a literal class war against backward feudal elements.
>"Let the West inherit the economic basket case of East Europe lol."
Nah, Gorby would have shown his true face by this time. He would be called a traitor.
>"We're infiltrating the global capitalist system from within."
Only right wing cranks say this.
>"By joining their markets, we will sabotage them with superior dialectics."
Pure stupidity
>"The Party is purifying itself by shedding the reactionary republics."
Some racists some say this
>"Gorbachev's plan was perfect, but traitors (Yeltsin, the generals) sabotaged it."
There would definitely be some people holding on to cope, that Gorby could do no wrong.

>>2661269
Gorby sure liked to waste a lot of money.

>>2661721
>You are posing it as if countries like Libya or Venezuela were too stupid to just expropriate everything. The reality is that expropriation rarely covers the costs of being cut off from further investments and loans.
The reality is that you get cut off either way, so you might as well go in 100 %.

>>2661269
What was his main malfunction?

>>2661260
ok but when they did this it made everyone attack them at once lol