This is a well-known poster, but feels more relevant recently.

  • Weydemeyer@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Respectfully, the two things you are trying to compare are not really comparable in any meaningful way.

    Edit: If I am being as generous as possible, I suppose you could stretch the definition of “colonialism” to include Tsarist Russia and Siberia (not sure I would agree, but let’s call it that). But even then, by the time you get to the USSR I don’t see how you could call it that, as opposed to the USSR literally just developing part of the Union.

    • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      as opposed to the USSR literally just developing part of the Union.

      That’s literally the narrative all colonizers use. “The white man’s burden” to force their culture onto others and build infrastructure to move natural resources to the imperial core. The form of colonialism changed from Tsarist Russia to the USSR to post-Bolshevik Russia but resource extraction is one common denominator and that’s what the post is about