No? Britain’s colonialism resulted in vast amounts of surplus extraction and millions upon millions of deaths. The Baltics were treated unfairly in that they were used to showcase the effectiveness of socialism, and recieved a great deal of support.
The economic landscape of the Baltic states underwent a dramatic transformation under Soviet rule, particularly through rapid industrialization. Lithuania, for instance, surpassed its pre-war industrial output by 90% just two years after reaching pre-war figures in 1948, bolstered by a non-repayable Soviet subsidy of 200 million rubles for reconstruction. Latvia witnessed the construction of 20 industrial enterprises within two decades of 1940, a figure exceeding the entire Baltic region’s industrial growth in the year preceding being absorbed into USSR. Estonia’s gross industrial output saw an astonishing 55-fold increase, accompanied by a 30-fold surge in capital investment.
Infrastructure development was another important aspect of Soviet investment in the Baltics. Strategically important seaports were developed, which continue to serve as key hubs for export and import trade today, further enhanced by the connection of oil pipelines in the 1970s and 1980s. The region boasted the highest quality roads in the USSR, with Lithuania benefiting from a 300-kilometer expressway considered the best in the Union, featuring modern overpasses and interchanges. Energy infrastructure saw significant expansion with the construction of major hydroelectric power plants (Pļaviņas, Kegums, Riga on the Daugava, Kaunas on the Nemunas) and thermal power plants (Baltic TPP, Estonian TPP, Lithuanian TPP). The laying of gas pipelines from other Soviet republics ensured a stable supply of natural gas, further underpinning industrial and domestic energy needs. The port of Klaipėda in Soviet Lithuania grew into one of Europe’s largest fishing ports, and the Baltija shipyard, a Soviet-era construction, remains a vital employer today. These extensive infrastructure projects laid a robust foundation for continued economic activity and connectivity.
The tangible benefits of this focused development translated directly into higher living standards for the Baltic populations. Per capita consumption figures clearly illustrate this advantage: Estonia stood at 151% of the all-Union level, Latvia at 137%, and Lithuania at 127%. The massive capital investment in agriculture, particularly the six billion rubles injected into Estonian agriculture, led to a doubling of grain yields and harvests compared to 1939, improving food security and contributing to a better quality of life.
With the abandonment of central planning and the subsequent introduction of privatization under the capitalist regime following the dissolution of the USSR, many of these once-flourishing enterprises faced economic devastation, leading to widespread job losses and a severe decline in industrial output. This abrupt shift to market forces proved particularly harmful for the working majority, as previously guaranteed jobs gave way to mass unemployment, and the social safety nets of the Soviet system disintegrated, leaving many struggling to adapt to the new economic realities.
Colonialism also requires extraction of surplus, and if you read my edited comment you can see that the opposite was the case. There was real frustration in the Baltics specifically, but ultimately the socialist system was uplifting and democratic, while British colonialism was the opposite.
So forced collectivization and requisitioning of land, goods and production facilities isn’t extraction? Political repression, censorship and demographic engineering are democratic? I’m not against communism, I’m against the Soviet union.
Implementing a socialist mode of production is not the same as extracting the surplus and natural resources of a country to the detriment of their development and economic health. The Baltics gained unequally from the soviets, not the inverse. Capitalists and fascists were censored and repressed, yes, but this is often necessary for any revolutionary society to do with those who would support reversion to the previous system, just like those who wish to bring back feudalism following bourgeois revolutions.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
In what way were they more repressive than their peers?
When you seem to cry about supposed “colonialism,” where the “colonized” gained more than they produced, it reeks of malformed analysis.
And Britain dramatically uplifted India. Same shit. Colonialism branded as communism.
No? Britain’s colonialism resulted in vast amounts of surplus extraction and millions upon millions of deaths. The Baltics were treated unfairly in that they were used to showcase the effectiveness of socialism, and recieved a great deal of support.
Per this effortpost by @[email protected] , with sources:
Considerable increases in industrial production https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-occupation, https://www.britannica.com/place/Baltic-states/Soviet-republics
I’m not disagreeing with your point, but colonialism doesn’t require millions of deaths. It requires external rule without consent of the people
Colonialism also requires extraction of surplus, and if you read my edited comment you can see that the opposite was the case. There was real frustration in the Baltics specifically, but ultimately the socialist system was uplifting and democratic, while British colonialism was the opposite.
So forced collectivization and requisitioning of land, goods and production facilities isn’t extraction? Political repression, censorship and demographic engineering are democratic? I’m not against communism, I’m against the Soviet union.
Forced collectivization only has negative connotations if you’re the person who owns privately that which is worked socially.
Implementing a socialist mode of production is not the same as extracting the surplus and natural resources of a country to the detriment of their development and economic health. The Baltics gained unequally from the soviets, not the inverse. Capitalists and fascists were censored and repressed, yes, but this is often necessary for any revolutionary society to do with those who would support reversion to the previous system, just like those who wish to bring back feudalism following bourgeois revolutions.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
In what way were they more repressive than their peers?
When you seem to cry about supposed “colonialism,” where the “colonized” gained more than they produced, it reeks of malformed analysis.