NationStates

The Archregimancy wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Is there such an option ? please open a survey

(Image)

You would have come closest in the period 1918-1924, when the modern Central Asian republics were mostly divided between the Turkestan ASSR and the Kirgiz ASSR, with two smaller 'People's Socialist Republics' around Bukhara and Khiva, so the map looked like this:

However, these were ASSRs of the main Russian Republic, not full Soviet Republics; that came later.

Just to confuse matters, the Kirgiz ASSR is essentially the territory of modern Kazakhstan, not modern Kyrgyzstan. It took the Soviets until the 1930s to decide that the 'Kirghiz-Kazaks' should be called Kazakhs, and the Kara-Kirghiz should be called 'Kyrgyz'; which helps to show the extent to which the modern nation states in that region are not just artificial constructs in terms of their state boundaries, but also in terms of the formulation of their ethnic identities. Though since everyone more or less accepts the Soviet-era ethnic designations and boundaries (to the extent that they cause occasional inter-ethnic flare-ups in the Fergana Valley), there's no real harm done. Not currently, anyway.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
You would have come closest in the period 1918-1924, when the modern Central Asian republics were mostly divided between the Turkestan ASSR and the Kirgiz ASSR, with two smaller 'People's Socialist Republics' around Bukhara and Khiva, so the map looked like this:

However, these were ASSRs of the main Russian Republic, not full Soviet Republics; that came later.

Just to confuse matters, the Kirgiz ASSR is essentially the territory of modern Kazakhstan, not modern Kyrgyzstan. It took the Soviets until the 1930s to decide that the 'Kirghiz-Kazaks' should be called Kazakhs, and the Kara-Kirghiz should be called 'Kyrgyz'; which helps to show the extent to which the modern nation states in that region are not just artificial constructs in terms of their state boundaries, but also in terms of the formulation of their ethnic identities. Though since everyone more or less accepts the Soviet-era ethnic designations and boundaries (to the extent that they cause occasional inter-ethnic flare-ups in the Fergana Valley), there's no real harm done. Not currently, anyway.

What would you think of a new Soviet country with these borders ?

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
You would have come closest in the period 1918-1924, when the modern Central Asian republics were mostly divided between the Turkestan ASSR and the Kirgiz ASSR, with two smaller 'People's Socialist Republics' around Bukhara and Khiva, so the map looked like this:

However, these were ASSRs of the main Russian Republic, not full Soviet Republics; that came later.

Just to confuse matters, the Kirgiz ASSR is essentially the territory of modern Kazakhstan, not modern Kyrgyzstan. It took the Soviets until the 1930s to decide that the 'Kirghiz-Kazaks' should be called Kazakhs, and the Kara-Kirghiz should be called 'Kyrgyz'; which helps to show the extent to which the modern nation states in that region are not just artificial constructs in terms of their state boundaries, but also in terms of the formulation of their ethnic identities. Though since everyone more or less accepts the Soviet-era ethnic designations and boundaries (to the extent that they cause occasional inter-ethnic flare-ups in the Fergana Valley), there's no real harm done. Not currently, anyway.

What would you think of a new Soviet country with these borders ?

Radiatia wrote:Armenia, because of the Radio Yerevan jokes.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
You would have come closest in the period 1918-1924, when the modern Central Asian republics were mostly divided between the Turkestan ASSR and the Kirgiz ASSR, with two smaller 'People's Socialist Republics' around Bukhara and Khiva, so the map looked like this:

However, these were ASSRs of the main Russian Republic, not full Soviet Republics; that came later.

Just to confuse matters, the Kirgiz ASSR is essentially the territory of modern Kazakhstan, not modern Kyrgyzstan. It took the Soviets until the 1930s to decide that the 'Kirghiz-Kazaks' should be called Kazakhs, and the Kara-Kirghiz should be called 'Kyrgyz'; which helps to show the extent to which the modern nation states in that region are not just artificial constructs in terms of their state boundaries, but also in terms of the formulation of their ethnic identities. Though since everyone more or less accepts the Soviet-era ethnic designations and boundaries (to the extent that they cause occasional inter-ethnic flare-ups in the Fergana Valley), there's no real harm done. Not currently, anyway.

What would you think of a new Soviet country with these borders ?

Treciene wrote:There were a total of 15 Soviet Republics at the end of the Soviet Union. They were:
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Byelorussian
Estonian
Georgian
Kazakh
Kirghiz
Latvian
Lithuanian
Moldavian
Russian
Tajik
Turkmen
Ukrainian
Uzbek
All of these Soviet Republics had the same features: a ruling communist party, terrible infrastructure, ethnic peoples, and a lot more. But they were all different in some way. Kazakhstan had the baikonur cosmodrome used for Soviet space missions. Moldova had Moldevenism, and Georgia had a not red and yellow flag.

So what is the best Soviet republic?

In my opinion, I think it is Russia, because it was the largest, both in size and people. Also, it dominated the soviets in culture, economy, and technology.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Marxism wasn't just a criticism of capitalism though, but was expanded into proposed solutions, and part of that solution was violent revolution. Engels (Marx's co-author and probably the most influential person in Marxism after Marx's death) was quite an adamant proponent of dictatorship to crush counterrevolution.

Engels was also a prick then.

God I just want free elections, healthcare, social safety net, free religion, lower carbon emissions and, LGBT rights.

Oh and for corporations like nestle to go eat a dick. EA too, they fucked my plants vs zombies.

Ancapimania wrote:Wasn't tanna tuva a Soviet republic

Atheris wrote:

Ancapimania wrote:Wasn't tanna tuva a Soviet republic

It was an ASSR of Russia.

Duvniask wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Engels was also a prick then.

God I just want free elections, healthcare, social safety net, free religion, lower carbon emissions and, LGBT rights.

Oh and for corporations like nestle to go eat a dick. EA too, they fucked my plants vs zombies.

There is nothing "prickish" about recognizing the need for any revolution to defeat its opposition. Communism is not an expression of pluralist views that we should expect "all can agree on", it is an expression of programmatic content, that content being the abolition of class society and with it all the privileges of the ruling classes. That they should oppose this and fight against any encroachment on their power is natural. Equally natural is the revolutionary terror in response. Your view betrays a naivete about social change.

Punished UMN wrote:IIRC Belarusia had the best GDP per capita and living standard.

Belarus not only preserved, but also developed, the production of military equipment, electronics and communication systems. Belarusian arms and equipment are seriously represented on the international market, they can compete with Ukraine, which occupies second place in this area after Russia among the post-Soviet republics. Belarus ranks among the most developed of the former Soviet states, with a relatively modern - by Soviet standards - and diverse machine building sector and a robust agriculture sector

Duvniask wrote:

Atheris wrote:It was an ASSR of Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_People's_Republic

Treciene wrote:-snip-

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Duvniask wrote:There is nothing "prickish" about recognizing the need for any revolution to defeat its opposition. Communism is not an expression of pluralist views that we should expect "all can agree on", it is an expression of programmatic content, that content being the abolition of class society and with it all the privileges of the ruling classes. That they should oppose this and fight against any encroachment on their power is natural. Equally natural is the revolutionary terror in response. Your view betrays a naivete about social change.

The issue with Marxism is that it thinks a dictatorship of the proles is better than a capitalist dictatorship. Tyranny is tyranny and as we saw in the USSR, when you set up a dictatorship, good people die. I agree that capitalism should be rendered as obsolete as feudalism. I don't think we need to have a reign of terror to accomplish that. I don't like the idea of killing people just for having different ideas than me, especially people who want the same end goal I want. Im not an ancom, but I will defend to the death the right of ancoms to be ancoms, and me and the ancoms are both sick and tired of this corporate society that has ruined planet earth. I'm not an Arab Socialist but I support the Arab Socialists in their anti imperialist quest. I think we can disagree on things while all wanting what's best for society and all deserving a right to speak our minds. And the way society is governed should always be chosen by its citizens, not by one man or a small oligarchy.

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
You would have come closest in the period 1918-1924, when the modern Central Asian republics were mostly divided between the Turkestan ASSR and the Kirgiz ASSR, with two smaller 'People's Socialist Republics' around Bukhara and Khiva, so the map looked like this:

However, these were ASSRs of the main Russian Republic, not full Soviet Republics; that came later.

Just to confuse matters, the Kirgiz ASSR is essentially the territory of modern Kazakhstan, not modern Kyrgyzstan. It took the Soviets until the 1930s to decide that the 'Kirghiz-Kazaks' should be called Kazakhs, and the Kara-Kirghiz should be called 'Kyrgyz'; which helps to show the extent to which the modern nation states in that region are not just artificial constructs in terms of their state boundaries, but also in terms of the formulation of their ethnic identities. Though since everyone more or less accepts the Soviet-era ethnic designations and boundaries (to the extent that they cause occasional inter-ethnic flare-ups in the Fergana Valley), there's no real harm done. Not currently, anyway.

What would you think of a new Soviet country with these borders ?

Ancapimania wrote:Wasn't tanna tuva a Soviet republic

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
You would have come closest in the period 1918-1924, when the modern Central Asian republics were mostly divided between the Turkestan ASSR and the Kirgiz ASSR, with two smaller 'People's Socialist Republics' around Bukhara and Khiva, so the map looked like this:

However, these were ASSRs of the main Russian Republic, not full Soviet Republics; that came later.

Just to confuse matters, the Kirgiz ASSR is essentially the territory of modern Kazakhstan, not modern Kyrgyzstan. It took the Soviets until the 1930s to decide that the 'Kirghiz-Kazaks' should be called Kazakhs, and the Kara-Kirghiz should be called 'Kyrgyz'; which helps to show the extent to which the modern nation states in that region are not just artificial constructs in terms of their state boundaries, but also in terms of the formulation of their ethnic identities. Though since everyone more or less accepts the Soviet-era ethnic designations and boundaries (to the extent that they cause occasional inter-ethnic flare-ups in the Fergana Valley), there's no real harm done. Not currently, anyway.

What would you think of a new Soviet country with these borders ?

The Archregimancy wrote:

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:What would you think of a new Soviet country with these borders ?

Tuvan nationalists would never agree.

Tuva forever
Tuva my home
Tuva my country
Where the wild yak still roam.

Tuva my homeland
Of your wild yak we're proud
Their hooves are like thunder
Their snorting is loud

So sing Ho! for Tuva
Sing Ho! with joy
Your fermented wild yak's milk
Is what we enjoy.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Ancapimania wrote:Wasn't tanna tuva a Soviet republic

Not quite.

Tannu Tuva, more accurately the Tuvan People's Republic, was a sort-of independent state for just over 20 years from 1921 to 1944. It had previously been an outlying territory of Qing China that had been detached by the Mongolian Revolution of 1911, and formed a semi-autonomous Russian protectorate from 1914-1921. But while nominally independent, Tannu Tuva was always a Soviet puppet state, and was then annexed by the Soviet Union - ostensibly at the request of the Tuvan parliament (and if you believe that, I have a lovely statue at the entrance to New York harbour that I'd like to sell you). But it never became a full Soviet republic of the Soviet Union. From 1944-1961 it was an 'autonomous oblast' of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and from 1961 to the end of the Soviet Union, an 'autonomous soviet republic' of the RSFSR. It's now a federal republic of post-Soviet Russia.

The postage stamps of the 1921-1944 independent republic are, however, sought-after collectors' items - and Tuva returned to international cultural prominence in the post-Soviet period as a result of a brief vogue for Tuvan throat singing. I'll admit to having Huun-Huur-Tu's classic 1993 album '60 Horses in My Herd' in my CD collection (yes, I still own CDs).

Hibernian-Caledonia wrote:

Treciene wrote:There were a total of 15 Soviet Republics at the end of the Soviet Union. They were:
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Byelorussian
Estonian
Georgian
Kazakh
Kirghiz
Latvian
Lithuanian
Moldavian
Russian
Tajik
Turkmen
Ukrainian
Uzbek
All of these Soviet Republics had the same features: a ruling communist party, terrible infrastructure, ethnic peoples, and a lot more. But they were all different in some way. Kazakhstan had the baikonur cosmodrome used for Soviet space missions. Moldova had Moldevenism, and Georgia had a not red and yellow flag.

So what is the best Soviet republic?

In my opinion, I think it is Russia, because it was the largest, both in size and people. Also, it dominated the soviets in culture, economy, and technology.

ukrainian bc im russian and wish ukraine was still russia

Mathuvan Union wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Tuvan nationalists would never agree.

Tuva forever
Tuva my home
Tuva my country
Where the wild yak still roam.

Tuva my homeland
Of your wild yak we're proud
Their hooves are like thunder
Their snorting is loud

So sing Ho! for Tuva
Sing Ho! with joy
Your fermented wild yak's milk
Is what we enjoy.

Fermented Yaks Milk?!

The Archregimancy wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Fermented Yaks Milk?!

Well, to be honest my little ditty does deliberately blur the distinction between kumis (the fermented mare's milk of Mongolia and Turkic regions) and the fermented yak milk of northwestern China; but 'yak' just worked better than 'mare'.

But yes, fermented milk is a common lightly alcoholic drink of the region.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Fermented Yaks Milk?!

Well, to be honest my little ditty does deliberately blur the distinction between kumis (the fermented mare's milk of Mongolia and Turkic regions) and the fermented yak milk of northwestern China; but 'yak' just worked better than 'mare'.

But yes, fermented milk is a common lightly alcoholic drink of the region.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Mathuvan Union wrote:

Fermented Yaks Milk?!

Well, to be honest my little ditty does deliberately blur the distinction between kumis (the fermented mare's milk of Mongolia and Turkic regions) and the fermented yak milk of northwestern China; but 'yak' just worked better than 'mare'.

But yes, fermented milk is a common lightly alcoholic drink of the region.

Duvniask wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
The issue with Marxism is that it thinks a dictatorship of the proles is better than a capitalist dictatorship. Tyranny is tyranny and as we saw in the USSR, when you set up a dictatorship, good people die. I agree that capitalism should be rendered as obsolete as feudalism. I don't think we need to have a reign of terror to accomplish that. I don't like the idea of killing people just for having different ideas than me, especially people who want the same end goal I want. Im not an ancom, but I will defend to the death the right of ancoms to be ancoms, and me and the ancoms are both sick and tired of this corporate society that has ruined planet earth. I'm not an Arab Socialist but I support the Arab Socialists in their anti imperialist quest. I think we can disagree on things while all wanting what's best for society and all deserving a right to speak our minds. And the way society is governed should always be chosen by its citizens, not by one man or a small oligarchy.

I don't think you have any notion of what the dictatorship of the proletariat entails. It is not the tyrannical rule of one man or a conspiratorial cabal as the more modern usage of the word suggests, it is the rule of the proletariat. The communist party is to serve as their instrument, through which they channel their collective power. You're misunderstanding its nature to be that of a dictatorship over the proletariat, not of it. The Bolshevik-made party state that ultimately turned against the workers, as exemplified in the brutal crackdown on Kronstadt, and ultimately initiated the counter-revolution under the guise of developing "socialism" is not something to be emulated. But neither should we delude ourselves into thinking that a communist revolution is about sharing power with its own enemies.