Right up to the end, the majority of people in the USSR wished to retain both the USSR and the system of socialism. This is proven not just from eyewitness reports of support, but also vote totals
This isn’t entirely true. The question posed essentially meant the USSR would reform into a more supranational organisation, granting more sovereignty and independence to the constituent republics. Voting “yes” was basically a vote for “‘less’ Soviet Union”, as there was no option to vote to dissolve it entirely. It’s also why after the yes-vote won, Soviet hardliners tried to coup the government.
When the New Union Treaty wasn’t fully implemented, member republics took it upon themselves to run full independence referendums, which were passed with overwhelming numbers (see the results on en.wikipedia.org/…/Category:Referendums_in_the_So…, 90%+ pro-independence in most countries. Remember, most happened in 1991 just like the Union referendum, and no large population swings to the complete opposite direction that fast). The massive disapproval of the communist party was also very visible, as the vast majority of republics started electing non-communist leaders.
And of course there were people still in favour of the Union, but they were largely outnumbered. Pro-union manifestations were met with large protests that often ended in police action to suppress them. Pro-Union sentiments started increasing again after the economic crises post-collapse, but it has never become so popular again to lead to a reformation.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
He talked about it - some variety of Trotskyism IIRC. A bit of a surprise but shouldn’t have been. Tons of former Maoists have been in high positions. Even a neoliberal head of the European Commission (Barroso).
On the supposed virtues of communism, you won’t convince me but I suppose you know that already. IMO the world would have done very well to listen to George Orwell, someone who saw through it all on the basis of up-front experience 90 years ago. That might have saved an awful lot of needless suffering. Or Orlando Figes, who wrote a book whose title says it all: “The USSR: A People’s Tragedy”.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Just straight up admitting your anti-communism is an unshakable article of faith that no argument or evidence can change.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
To be fair, I don’t think many communists globally are fans of Trotskyism, considering it’s predominantly western and liberal-compatible. The vast majority of communists globally are Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyism is seen as more fringe, and distinguishes itself primarily in its rejection of existing socialism as such, on vague and idealist basis, rather than materialist. A former Trotskyist making loads of money off of denouncing communism is both entirely predictable and hardly compelling for those who’ve studied communism in theory and practice.
As for the rapist Eric Blair, also known as George Orwell, the western world listened to him too well. He didn’t see through anything, rather, his position as a British fed (known for keeping a journal of people he knew and suspected of being Jewish and/or communists) and propagandist was extremely useful to western intelligence agencies. On Orwell is a good essay going over his dreadfall past and role in propagandizing. Orwell has been taught in countless schools not because of any truth, but because of his utility.
As for Figes, another that earns an enourmous sum of money from preaching the bible of anti-communism to serve capitalist interests, better historians exist. Syzmanski’s Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union today, Pat Sloan’s Soviet Democracy, Human Rights in the Soviet Union, Anna Louise Strong’s This Soviet World, Mary Stevenson Callcott’s Russian Justice, the recently deceased Dr. Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds, all the way up to Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, there’s tons of academic resources to get a much better view of socialism in practice.