I was asking why it didn't happen earlier because before the Union those countries were "We don't want to be in the union" and after the union those countries were "We said, we didn't want to be in the union". If before the union they didn't want to be in it and after the union they still said they didn't want to be in it then why should we assume that during the union they wanted to be in it? The answer is that they didn't, they simply weren't allowed to leave.

[–] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We said

Who is we? The bourgeoisie or the proletariat? There’s going to be severe conflicts of interest here.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The people

[–] Justice@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago

There are a ton of old as fuck Cuban-Americans and their children in Miami and elsewhere in the US who would swear a pledge before god himself that "the people" never wanted the revolution in Cuba.

And yet we know from every historical document available they these people are at best misled but usually just right wing liars who had their land confiscated (rightly btw. And compensated for! (Which I wouldn't have done- Castro was far too nice in that regard)) and they never stopped crying about their "stolen land." The irony being, yeah, it was stolen land. Stolen by them! Or their ancestors, their father or grandfather, anyway. Castro just helped return it to the rightful owners.

So you see why it's important to distinguish the cry-bully right wing fascist tears from the legitimate hardships of the workers who, yes, may well have suffered? But their suffering is almost always because of the US and allied European countries. It certainly wasn't caused by Castro or Soviet leaders, anyway. And in the case of former landlords and bourgeoisie losing what their families had exploited from others: good. I hope it makes them cry. They are an enemy of humanity hoarding wealth, exploiting others, and demanding wars to regain their former possessions. They do not represent the workers ie the people.

[–] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, let’s take Estonia as an example.

During WW2, the capitalists supported the 1941 Nazi invasion, to the point that many people retreated back with the Nazi armies (source (pp. 78-9)).

After dissolution, the poverty rate skyrocketed from 1% to 38% (source (p. 68)).

You may also want to read this RT article if you’re willing to do so.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you read your own source? The first source literally states that Estonian government was forced to hold a manipulated election to elect the communist party that then joined the union. It also contains several example of anti-soviet sentiment from the late 60s all the way to it's publication's date. It's proving my point that the people never wanted to be in the union.

[–] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Did you read it or just skip to the parts you liked? Your question was why they didn’t leave the USSR.

From p. 78 of the first source:

While there is some sentiment in favour of secession from the Soviet Union, this does not reflect majority opinion. There is little or no evidence of any significant inclination to replace socialism with capitalism, despite significant dissent about the particular forms of Soviet institutions existent today. The benefits to Estonia of being part of the Soviet Union have proved to be immense.

I’ll let others comment on the elections.