Was the Soviet Union an Empire?

[Shekwan]

Was the Soviet Union an Empire?

I suppose the central question is what is an "Empire" and how many of these characteristics did the SU exhibit.

I'm thinking of doing this question for my Russian politics class. An advantage for me is that it requires zero knowledge of contemporary Russian politics. But its on the list the lecturere made so whatever, its a valid essay. Some lively discussion here might inspire me to go down this more historical rather than the usual polical stuff I study.

Either way it stuck out as something that I would expect to see as a topic of discussion in here.

Well? Whats your opinion?

I'll post mine when I see what the most popular opinion among respected History forum posters is.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well Wikipedia says an empire is

Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

By that definition, I'd say they were. They did rule over an extensive amount of states (i.e. Central Asia, Baltic states) that were of different ethnic groups.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

An utterly stupid Moderator Action: flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 question. You might as well ask if the Sun is blue.

That definition is missing an important part: exploitation. Empires conquer other areas for their resources and subjugate their peoples, exploiting them in order to increase their own wealth. This was not the case with the Soviet Union, so though it may have ruled over a great variety of peoples and places, it did not behave imperially, so it was not an Empire. The attitude of the USSR towards both its republics and the Warsaw Pact was not one of father and son, or slave master and servant, or even one of client and benefactor; it was of older and younger brothers, the older, more capable and wiser, helping the younger to his feet.

And now you may cue the Eastern European naysayers, who will most assuredly whine about supposed one-sided trade agreements, East German factories, and Uzbek cotton. Maybe even a comparison to British India will arise. You never know what to expect from this place.

 

[LightSpectra]

That definition is missing an important part: exploitation. Empires conquer other areas for their resources and subjugate their peoples, exploiting them in order to increase their own wealth. This was not the case with the Soviet Union,

Oh? Plundering all of the industry of East Germany wasn't that?

so though it may have ruled over a great variety of peoples and places, it did not behave imperially, so it was not an Empire.

It occupied and controlled territories it had no claim over using military force. The only sense the Soviet Union wasn't an empire is in the fact that their head of state never took the title "emperor." Aside from that, they were even more imperial the Romanovs.

And now you may cue the Eastern European naysayers, who will most assuredly whine about supposed one-sided trade agreements, East German factories, and Uzbek cotton. Maybe even a comparison to British India will arise. You never know what to expect from this place.

All of those are true (though the British were a tad better in their treatment of Indians insofar that they were honest enough to admit they were an empire).

 

[bombshoo]

Is there any real exact definitions of an empire? Does it matter if the Soviet Union was? Does that change anything they did or why they did it? I'm sorry, and no offense to Shekwan, but I find this a terribly asinine question.

 

[Traitorfish]

That definition is missing an important part: exploitation. Empires conquer other areas for their resources and subjugate their peoples, exploiting them in order to increase their own wealth. This was not the case with the Soviet Union, so though it may have ruled over a great variety of peoples and places, it did not behave imperially, so it was not an Empire. The attitude of the USSR towards both its republics and the Warsaw Pact was not one of father and son, or slave master and servant, or even one of client and benefactor; it was of older and younger brothers, the older, more capable and wiser, helping the younger to his feet.

Doesn't that make the mistake of assuming that exploitation is a purely material affair? It's not unreasonable to suggest that the centralisation of power in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc at least resembled an imperial model, even if it did not comprise one. I would be extremely hesitant to suggest that Soviet involvement in the brutal repression of the Hungarian Uprising, for example, could be considered as mere fraternal cooperation.

 

[Yeekim]

I would be extremely hesitant to suggest that Soviet involvement in the brutal repression of the Hungarian Uprising, for example, could be considered as mere fraternal cooperation.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the correct term is "transnational tyranny".

 

[Karalysia]

Blaaaaaaaaaaarrr

 

[LightSpectra]

The fact that you think gulags and famines are superior to liberal democracies says so much about your beliefs, even if unintentionally.

 

[Karalysia]

Blaaaaaaaaaaarrr

 

[Traitorfish]

The fact that you think gulags and famines are superior to liberal democracies says so much about your beliefs, even if unintentionally.

Well, they were hardly a particularly Soviet pass-time, if you remember your history.

 

[LightSpectra]

Thus far the Soviet Union has been one of the most equitable societies to exist in human history other than perhaps the Paris Commune for the brief period of life it had.

Yes, insofar that it stripped every luxury worth living for from each person equally. (Well, every person who wasn't a high-ranking member of the CPSU, at least.)

Well, they were hardly a particularly Soviet pass-time, if you remember your history.

How appropriate that you have to cite events from the 19th century in order to even compare to the crimes against humanity of the Soviet Union. It's almost as if you're literally demonstrating the regressiveness of Marxism.

 

[Karalysia]

Blaaaaaaaaaaarrr

 

[Traitorfish]

How appropriate that you have to cite events from the 19th century in order to even compare to the crimes against humanity of the Soviet Union. It's almost as if you're literally demonstrating the regressiveness of Marxism.

Perhaps. My point was that tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whatever political or economic hat it chooses to don. Bourgeois pseudo-democracy is capable of every horror that the Soviet Union so busied itself in, if we but given it half a chance. That it's been a while since Britain's done more than, oh, brutally murder a few dozen taigs is a comment on the success of the British people, rather than of their economic system.

 

[red_elk]

Crimes against humanity, political prisoners?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_united_states

 

[Karalysia]

Blaaaaaaaaaaarrr

 

[LightSpectra]

In the Soviet Union, the highest paid people were artists, writers, professors, administrators, and scientists who earned between 1200-1500 rouubles a month. Government officals earned 600 roubles a month. Enterprise directors earned 190-400 roubles a month and workers 150 roubles a month.

Thus the highest income in the Soviet Union compared to the lowest income in the Soviet Union was only 10 times. Privelages that came with office reamined small and limited, some special stores, offical cars as any other government in the country has. The trend was toward egalitarianism.

Unbiased citation? Rubles versus dollars exchange rate? Credible non-Marxist historians to support the aforementioned assertions?

In the US, the highest paid people are corporate heads. They make 115 times the wage of workers which then increased to 480 times the wage of workers combined with ridiclous decadance. The US continues to reward its largely worthless corporate heads while punishing the other more valuable members of society.

Yes, we get it. You dislike the chain of authority in Western society. Nevertheless, Western Europe and the U.S. are among the highest in terms of quality of life, technical innovation and political liberty -- hence why you'll find a great deal of men who fled the Iron Curtain for the West and cherished the freedoms they acquired, whereas you'll be hard pressed to cite a great deal of people who migrated into the Soviet Union or its occupied territories and lamented at how terrible their former lives were (on solely economic grounds, obviously).

 

[LightSpectra]

Perhaps. My point was that tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whatever political or economic hat it chooses to don. Bourgeois pseudo-democracy is capable of every horror that the Soviet Union so busied itself in, if we but given it half a chance. That it's been a while since Britain's done more than, oh, brutally murder a few dozen taigs is a comment on the success of the British people, rather than of their economic system.

Dictatorships are entirely fragile in countries with economic freedom. Take men like Pinochet and Franco, for instance; they fostered economic growth, and despite the evils they committed, their respective countries became liberal democracies shortly after their personal regimes collapsed.

Whereas countries that adopt communism over long periods of time are essentially thrown into the dark ages.

Crimes against humanity, political prisoners?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_united_states

I dare you to name a single non-insignificant country in the 20th century that went entirely without incidents of political dissent and/or tensions between its inhabitants.

Nevertheless, if you're honestly arguing that being segregated in the the 20th century U.S. was at all comparable to the conditions in Soviet gulags and other forced labor camps, your credibility speaks for itself. The same goes for comparing McCarthyism to the manner of purges that Stalin committed.

 

[red_elk]

Unbiased citation? Rubles versus dollars exchange rate? Credible non-Marxist historians to support the aforementioned assertions?

In another example, USSR appeared to have relatively high income inequality: by some estimates, in the late 70's, Gini coefficient of its urban population was as high as 0.38[14], which is higher than many Western countries today. This apparent inequality ignored the fact that many benefits received by Soviet citizens were nonmonetary and were afforded regardless of income: these benefits included, among others, free child care for children as young as 2 months, free elementary, secondary and higher education, free cradle-to-grave medical care, free or heavily subsidized housing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#General_problems_of_measurement

And yes, the salary of Soviet professor was comparable to miner's salary.

Nevertheless, if you're honestly arguing that being segregated in the the 20th century U.S. was at all comparable to the conditions in Soviet gulags and other forced labor camps, your credibility speaks for itself. The same goes for comparing McCarthyism to the manner of purges that Stalin committed.

Racism was an example of crimes against humanity in liberal democracy in XX century, since you was not satisfied with example from XIX century.
I'm not comparing racism in the USA with GULAG in USSR, they were significantly different by nature. USSR had more problems with treatment of political prisoners, the USA - with racial discrimination. BTW, entire GULAG population was significantly less than population of prisons in modern USA.