Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

How close was communism to world domination?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Apr 2014, 02:29
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2014, 18:22
Also, at roughly what time was communism at its peak (strongest)?
Do you think America is on its way to becoming Communist?
Is there a realistic possibility that communism may revive and achieve unprecedented power, possibly even global domination?

thanks comrades!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 19 May 2014, 19:51
The domination of communism is unavoidable because of the development of robotics. Today, class inequalities are justified by the bourgeoisie with a sleight of hand: someone worked, and with this work created or bought capital as "dead labor". For example he bought a machine. With this capital, he buys the work of someone else ("I have a machine, you don't have one, so come work for me"). Thus, the bourgeoisie can have people believe that social inequalities and private ownership of the means of production are justified by this initial work which created the initial capital, even though more than 99% of the wealth of big companies was created by the working class, and even though many bourgeois never worked at all since they inherited their capital. The difficulty for us, communists, is to help people see the truth behind bourgeois ideology.

But in a society in which labor is replaced entirely by machines, there can be no justification for social inequalities, there is no ground for the existence of a bourgeoisie. The only thing we need for this to happen is the creation of robots with a human-like AI, robots able to produce other robots, repair them, and organize production according to human needs. This could happen in a few decades, but eventually, this will happen.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 673
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 May 2014, 14:37
I think most people will say that the 40s-50s were when the "Communist Bloc" was the strongest. You had the USSR, most of Eastern Europe, and a significant portion of Asia under governments which publicly agreed with one-another on issues of foreign and domestic policies.

Of course if you think the Stalin-era USSR and Co. were aberrations from socialism then you'd have to say that 1917 and the few years afterward signified the peak due to the October Revolution and unsuccessful revolutions in Germany, Hungary and elsewhere.

One problem with the post-Stalin USSR is that Soviet relations had an increasingly geopolitical character. States in the third world that had good relations with the USSR like India, Egypt and Burma actually persecuted communists. The claim from 1955 onwards was that these and other pro-Soviet states were on a "non-capitalist road" of development, wherein their deepening relations with the "world socialist economy" would objectively lay the foundations for socialism at a later date.

Depending on how you look at it, either the 60s or the 70s were the height of Soviet geopolitical influence.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 20 May 2014, 18:30
Quote:
Also, at roughly what time was communism at its peak (strongest)?
Do you think America is on its way to becoming Communist?
Is there a realistic possibility that communism may revive and achieve unprecedented power, possibly even global domination?


Probably in the 1950s and 60s.
No
Ask me again in 20 years.


Quote:
The domination of communism is unavoidable because of the development of robotics. Today, class inequalities are justified by the bourgeoisie with a sleight of hand: someone worked, and with this work created or bought capital as "dead labor". For example he bought a machine. With this capital, he buys the work of someone else ("I have a machine, you don't have one, so come work for me"). Thus, the bourgeoisie can have people believe that social inequalities and private ownership of the means of production are justified by this initial work which created the initial capital, even though more than 99% of the wealth of big companies was created by the working class, and even though many bourgeois never worked at all since they inherited their capital. The difficulty for us, communists, is to help people see the truth behind bourgeois ideology.

But in a society in which labor is replaced entirely by machines, there can be no justification for social inequalities, there is no ground for the existence of a bourgeoisie. The only thing we need for this to happen is the creation of robots with a human-like AI, robots able to produce other robots, repair them, and organize production according to human needs. This could happen in a few decades, but eventually, this will happen.


I don't think this will ever happen. We will never reach full robotics or whatever you want to call it. People will always be needed to operate robots, decide when the replace them or change their operating patterns etc. Also what about all the unproductive labour (assistants, advisers, planners etc.)? Also you forget that if the bourgeoisie realise that full robotics will negate their profits, they will actively unite to prevent it from happening.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 22 May 2014, 22:20
The 1950s before Stalin's death was the peak of communism in my opinion. By then the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. This was before the Sino Soviet split. The entire communist world by then had encompassed 35,742,000 sq. km. with a little more than 1 billion people living within it.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 May 2014, 23:36
The entire communist world back then couldn't feed those billion people beyond starvation rations ( not wages ), and more than half of the population ( peasants ) didn't even have civil rights not to mention actual salaries, social security and so on with everyone living in the atmosphere of absolute terror ( and in the USSR in particular there was an epidemic of antisemitism and xenophobia that went to unimaginable lengths ) and dogmatic party-dictated idiotism in every domain of human activity.
Shows just what you mean by communism.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 23 May 2014, 12:36
Seeing as these were the years after Eurasia endured some of the most devastating wars in history; it is short of a miracle that communism was still able to stand steadfast and victorious. I believe they should be praised for that, not criticised. They had defeated Fascist imperialism on all fronts. They are heroes.

Furthermore, I don't think it's wise to generalise conditions as if they were the same over the entire span of Communist Eurasia.

As for the atmosphere of absolute terror, epidemic of anti-Semitism and xenophobia; I won't argue with you because I respect your right to opinion and beliefs.

What I will say is that my Jewish relatives who were already in their 20s in the aforementioned time and place hold different opinions to yours and so do I.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 30 May 2014, 00:10
Quote:
The entire communist world back then couldn't feed those billion people beyond starvation rations ( not wages )

Let's be clear about something the people of China didn't even have starvation rations before the PRC. They just starved. Second the PRC had just undergone a brutal decade-long war with the Japanese along with the Nationalist-Communist Civil War. By the 1970s the living standards of the people of China had improved enormously and no, people were not starving as they are now. If one excludes the 1961-62 year (where there was flooding and a naturally caused famine that resulted) which was a statistical outlier the Chinese GDP during the Mao period grew at essentially the same rate is grows now (9% averaged). Granted the growth was more erradic from year to year but the average over time was the same and with far, far lower lower inequality and with real workers ownership of the means of production.

As for the Soviet Union. They too had suffered from Civil War (1917-1921) the possibility of Nazi operatives (1931-1941) World War II (1941-1945) and massive imperialist agressions from the United States (1945-1991). Despite this they were able to end malnutrition completely. Completely. That's something that cannot be said about the United States, the richest country in the world, with foodstamps, that still has hunger and malnutrition. The billion people starving right now in the third world all have capitalist governments and economic systems. Where's capitalism preventing the starvation?
Quote:
and more than half of the population ( peasants ) didn't even have civil rights

I beg to differ.
The constitution of the Soviet Union had rights and freedoms guarenteed to all it's citizens. All of them. Just as it was in the PRC. Was this obeyed and enforced? Yes (excluding perhaps WW2 when they were, well, invaded). The Soviet and Chinese Government went out and educated the masses, tought them how to read and right, gave them medical care and health assistance (the barefoot doctors etc). The life expectancy of these people improved enormously.

Quote:
not to mention actual salaries

Image

This is a chart of the income inequality of the Soviet Union. The numbers show how many times more the top 20% had compared to the bottom 20%. Notice that right after WW2 which required centralizing wealth in the military and when massive amounts of wealth were destroyed in different locations leading to regional inequality, the income distrubution was still significantly less than in Western Capitalist nations (7.2 vs 10-30). Also notice that both before and after Stalin's death income inequality reduced enormously before bouncing back under Capitalism in 1990-Present.

Quote:
and so on with everyone living in the atmosphere of absolute terror

This is an assetion without any evidence to back it up. All the evidence shows that Stalin, the person responsible for this "atmosphere of absolute terror" is the third most popular and loved leader in Russia history. Also the overwhelming majority of people in the Eastern Bloc wish that Socialism was back! The polls say not me.

( and in the USSR in particular there was an epidemic of antisemitism and xenophobia that went to unimaginable lengths ) and dogmatic party-dictated idiotism in every domain of human activity.)
Another unsupported assertion. I could dismiss your entire post because you cite any evidence or sources for what you claim. That which is asserted without evidence can therefore be dissmissed without evidence. However I can even provide evidence that contradicts what you're saying (like statements by Lenin against anti-semitism). But let's even assume what you are saying here is true. How can cultural issues with Russians be blamed on Socialism, an economic/political system that ruled for a few decades there?

In conclusion all your points have been assertions without any evidence provided and hence they can be dismissed without evidence although it's even worse as the evidence does contradict much or what you say. Your last point had nothing to do with Socialism and can be disregarded for that reason also.

Quote:
Shows just what you mean by communism.

What is this supposed to mean? I don't even get it? What argument, claim, point or assertion is this? I seriously just don't understand this part.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 02 Jun 2014, 14:47
Comrades! I hate to be a pedant, but none of these regimes were communist. Even the USSR only considered itself socialist! They were, allegedly, working towards communism.
But in reality they were just (state) capitalist regimes were workers sold their labour power to the state and surplus values were extracted for the elites to live off.
You might as well say that school teachers, working for any state is socialism. It isn’t though, hope we can all agree on that.
Funny how when these regimes collapsed the loudest cheers came from the workers.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 03 Jun 2014, 01:30
Strictly speaking you are correct. The Soviet Union, nor any other country in history is "Communist" communism being defined as a classless, stateless society. The use of the term Communism has become so accepted as refering to Marxist-Leninist governments in the west that the terms have become interchangheable. Marx also spoke of the "Lower Phase of Communism" more commonly called Socialism within Marxist circles.

It is this, "Lower Phase of Communism" or Socialism we are talking about when we refer to the Soviet Union, China and others. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat with a Vanguard Party or a United Front of parties. A class dictatorship of the working class over the capitalist class in which the state (an armed body of men) is controlled by the working class and is used against the capitalist class. Under Socialism the means of production is under the controll of the worker's state and "From each according to his ability and to each according to his work" is adopted meaning the workers gain as much value in consumer goods and currency that they produce through labour. Small deductions are made to support the Government.

The Soviet Union and China met these requirments.

Oh yes, the Russian workers loved the 1990s, didn't they? Just ignore the massive inequality, rising oligarchs, economic depression, high debts, chaos, spiking violence and crimes, growing unemployment, curruption, faked elections, massive population drop, massive poverty, loss of all social services and subsidies, etc and it was great time.

The Russian GDP growth rate was in the negative 14.5 percent to negative 3.6 percent growth for the entire decade of 1990-1998.
The Ukrainian GDP growth rate was between negative 23 percent and negative 0.3 percent between 1990-1999.

Even since then all the growth and gains the Russian economy has made have been going to the top Capitalist Class.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 589
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Dec 2013, 14:24
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Unperson
Post 03 Jun 2014, 09:12
The Russian workers never loved the USSR either, they were all desperate to defect to the West!
Plus, when the whole stinking, rotten regime came down not one of them lifted a finger to save it. Good!
The working class in the USSR never owned the means of production and the regime was never a land of free access. You needed money to buy goods and services, what little there were and if you ran out of money and your needs were not met? Tough! As for the state, as Marx said, the state can never be made to work in the interests of the workers and boy was he right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3799
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 03 Jun 2014, 14:47
I've had it with you Yami. You keep trolling and spamming the board with comments without source or facts. You were warned, given a yellow card, then a red card, and still you go on.

See you in Permabanistan.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 15
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jun 2014, 03:12
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 09 Jun 2014, 09:03
Yami,

All your well-rehearsed baloney is straight out of the School of Trotskyite falsification!

Apart from being in an active and proactive Communist Party, we undertake street campaigning activity every weekend in the city centre. I have met umpteen citizens of the Former Soviet Union, and each one has lamented the horrors of Capitalism and the loss of "innocence" under a benevolent Socialist society, under which their every need and want was cared for.

Similarly, in public street campaigning for Socialism I have met many former East Germans, who embraced us as heroes and assured us that their Socialist society was one of the most wonderful and safe environments to be a part of, not least when bringing up children or as single women roaming the streets. East Germany under Capitalism today is an utter hell hole, vast swathes of which have come under control of Fascist gangs who make the most of the dilapidated industries and mass youth unemployment.

The Social Security of Eastern bloc Socialism, although it had its faults, tried to look after all the needs of society. Of course, we can be sniffy about it in the West 25 years later. But even when the Socialist economies were straining to meet the needs of their loyal citizens - throughout the entire Socialist Bloc they didn't close a single school, care home or hospital!

The Socialist countries were literally heroic in insisting on fighting for every survivor! That's something we can all aspire to!
"When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist." Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian Archbishop

Image
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2014, 00:58
Great points Kailinin,

Getting back to the original question and focus of the thread "How close was Communism to world domination?"
I believe to answer this question we must first realize when revisionism took hold in Socialist countries. From all the research I can find, I've come to the conclusion that strong anti-revisionist Socialism was strongest in the late 1940s to mid 1950s. During this time, Eastern Europe, China, the DPRK, the USSR and other states were united, they had booming economies (even as they recovered from the devastation of WW2 and the Chinese civil war) and it seemed that Socialism might spread to Greece, France, Italy and other nations in Central/Western Europe. I think Khrushchev's 25 February 1956 "Secret Speech" to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, denouncing the Socialist construction under Stalin is a useful point where revisionism became a strong faction in the CPSU and the USSR (which was then the leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement). You could make the case that in the 1960s Socialism was stronger as living standards had improved, more countries had adopted Socialism, the Marxist-Leninist movement was expanding and revisionism didn't have complete conrol within the USSR.

Socialism was still alive and well but thereafter with each passing year the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism grew stronger within the CPSU. The bourgeois class began struggling back it's power within the USSR even as Vietnam, Cuba and other nations adopted Socialism in the 60s and 70s. This eventually culminated in 1989 when Gorbachev and Yeltson finally accomplished what others in the CPSU had been trying to do for decades. It was quite possible for true revolutionary Socialism to be restored untill that point, but now the damage has been done.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 10 Jun 2014, 01:31
Quote:
All your well-rehearsed baloney is straight out of the School of Trotskyite falsification!

You're not in 1937 anymore so ease down on the Pravda jargon. And Yami isn't ( wasn't ) a Trot anyway.

Quote:
Apart from being in an active and proactive Communist Party, we undertake street campaigning activity every weekend in the city centre. I have met umpteen citizens of the Former Soviet Union, and each one has lamented the horrors of Capitalism and the loss of "innocence" under a benevolent Socialist society, under which their every need and want was cared for.

You're having some serious delusions. I've yet to see a single person to claim anything similar to those "umpteen" and i'm from a former "socialist block" country.

Quote:
Similarly, in public street campaigning for Socialism I have met many former East Germans, who embraced us as heroes and assured us that their Socialist society was one of the most wonderful and safe environments to be a part of, not least when bringing up children or as single women roaming the streets.

I didn't know there were many Ossis in Scotland of all places but OK. What's the point here anyway? Obviously the DDR was better in some aspects for the average worker than today's Germany.

Quote:
The Social Security of Eastern bloc Socialism, although it had its faults, tried to look after all the needs of society. Of course, we can be sniffy about it in the West 25 years later. But even when the Socialist economies were straining to meet the needs of their loyal citizens - throughout the entire Socialist Bloc they didn't close a single school, care home or hospital!

And how many were closed in the UK? Are you aware than an average Brit in let's say 1980 probably had better healthcare and a higher living span ( not to mention nutrition ) than an average E. European? While the British miners were striking the Polish junta jumped in immediately with dumping-priced coal to help Thatcher and the people in Romania had to endure a decade of austerity measures to pay off Ceausescu's foreign debts.
Such glorious socialism.

Quote:
The Socialist countries were literally heroic in insisting on fighting for every survivor! That's something we can all aspire to!

Who exactly wants to aspire to failed projects?






Quote:
I think Khrushchev's 25 February 1956 "Secret Speech" to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, denouncing the Socialist construction under Stalin is a useful point where revisionism became a strong faction in the CPSU and the USSR (which was then the leader of the Marxist-Leninist movement). You could make the case that in the 1960s Socialism was stronger as living standards had improved, more countries had adopted Socialism, the Marxist-Leninist movement was expanding and revisionism didn't have complete conrol within the USSR.

And how exactly did that revisionist 180 degree turn manifest itself after 1956? What fundamental changes and reforms took place in the USSR after that day? Besides people being allowed to speak about Stalin's crimes for the first time in 20+ years?
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2014, 05:14
And how exactly did that revisionist 180 degree turn manifest itself after 1956? What fundamental changes and reforms took place in the USSR after that day? Besides people being allowed to speak about Stalin's crimes for the first time in 20+ years?

I'm glad you asked. The Khrushchev economic reforms of 1956-1962, The Kosygin Economic Reforms of 1965, 1973 and 1979, Peristroykia Glastnos in 1985-1991, etc.

It's interesting to note that the "era of stagnation" (a major exageration when you actually look at the GNP growth rates of the USSR from the CIA) began during Khrushchev's era. The massive reindustrialization after WW2 acheived by Stalin quickly subsided and economic growth began to slow down more and more as more revisionist policies were adopted. Despite this the economic success of the Soviet Socialist Planned Economy continued. It still had a comparable if not faster growth rate than the US and many other Western European nations, just significantly slower than under Stalin. The Soviet Union was not in crisis in 1985 when Gorbachev took power although it was in an economic disaster by the time Gorbachev left in 1991 thank's to his policies.
Image



Quote:
You're having some serious delusions. I've yet to see a single person to claim anything similar to those "umpteen" and i'm from a former "socialist block" country.

The polls seem to agree with Kailinin

[1] 57% of Eastern Germans defend the GDR
"In 2009, a study revealed that 57 per cent of former East Germans preferred life in Communist East Germany under Soviet rule, and 8 per cent of those polled refused to accept any criticism of the former German Democratic Republic"
[2] 61% of Romanians think Communism is a good idea
[3] 62% of Hungarians were happiest under Communist Rule
[4] 36% percent in Ukraine are happy with the change from State Socialism to Market Capitalism
[5] More than 60 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that during the communist Yugoslav period they enjoyed greater personal freedoms, the economy was stronger and their living standard was higher. Only about 20 per cent of those queried disagreed with these statements.
[6]60% of Russians see Communism as good.


[1]https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/6322.4780.0.0/europe/germany/eastern-germans-feel-life-was-better-under-communism
[2]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/18/romania-turmoil-fuels-nostalgia-communism-1994811733/
[3]http://www.politics.hu/20080521/poll-shows-majority-of-hungarians-feel-life-was-better-under-communism/
[4]http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/16/the-rise-of-communist-nostalgi
[5]http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonians-deem-communist-past-better-than-present
[6]http://rbth.com/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html

Quote:
What's the point here anyway? Obviously the DDR was better in some aspects for the average worker than today's Germany.

I think his point is that the GDR was better in many aspects for the average worker than today's Germany. I agree, as do 57% of Eastern Germans.

This is getting off topic however. The original question is "How close was communism to world domination?". Here is a map of Marxist-Leninist governments in 1979-1983. Even with the rampant revisionism in the CPSU socialism managed to spread to 1/3 of the world's population/landmass.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 25 Jul 2014, 10:38
It's hard to say. "World domination" would require unity of purpose for those having it or seeking it. Therefore, anything dating after the Sino-Soviet split would have to disqualify. In the 60s and 70s, there was Vietnam and "two, three, many Vietnams", mainly in Africa and Latin America. This was an inspiring achievement in terms of socialism and national liberation, but a pyrrhic victory if we insist on thinking in terms of "communist world domination", because Vietnam ended up at war with Cambodia and China.

Instead of the "domino theory" coming into fulfilment, the socialist states in Asia ended up fighting each other, while the other "dominoes", like Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, remained bastions of reaction and hyper-capitalism, not to mention the "Asian Tigers".

So I would sooner point to the period between World War II and the Sino-Soviet split, but that also deserves some strong qualifications. Even when Stalin was still around, there were certain tensions and differences, and something like the 1950 treaty between the two states was an important breakthrough in relations, but also a compromise between different interests. Likewise, the intervention in the Korean War was disjointed rather than coordinated. Contrary to what was suggested by the western Cold War mentality, there was no monolithic bloc of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-sung.

Only towards the end of Stalin's life did relations become tighter, but it would still be a major assumption to say that the tensions that led to the Sino-Soviet split would not have happened if only Stalin's foreign policy had been continued. All sorts of contradictions and tensions could have developed, and there is no way of knowing for sure that things would have remained static forever. Would Molotov's ideas be realised? We simply don't know.

In terms of counterfactuals, we can look at any number of things in this 1946-56 period that might have gone differently: what if the communists in France or Italy had prevailed? What if any of the early Cold War crises in this period had gone differently, like Greece or the Berlin blockade, or no Yugoslav split? I think it remains speculation, although I do believe that a breakthrough in a major western country like France or Italy would also have been a breakthrough in global relations, because it would have prevented a clean "Iron Curtain" divide of Europe. But the direction of such a turn afterwards is impossible to say for sure.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 25 Jul 2014, 14:13
I've wanted to say it since I first noticed this thread, but I love the thread title. It reminded me of Edward R Murrow and his friends' educational films about the communism's plans for world domination.


Image


....

As to the topic, I think I'd agree that the early post-war period, before the Sino-Soviet split, and just as importantly, before the 'revelations' (i.e. damaging mudslinging) of the 20th Congress, was the ideological peak of communist power in the world in the 20th century. If measuring in geopolitical terms, I'd say the late 1970s were the peak of Soviet geopolitical and military power, and the valley of the US', after Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, Willy Brandt and a huge mess of other problems. I'd also say, again thinking in geopolitical terms, that the USSR wasted a lot of potential game-changing moments that had built up in the world by the mid-1980s. These include:

1. the warming of relations with China based strictly on pragmatic, economic calculations -something that was beginning to occur from the early 1980s on and which had the potential to alleviate problems such as the deficit of cheap, simple consumer goods, and the expensive military buildup in Siberia, Mongolia and Vietnam. In exchange the Chinese would have benefited from Soviet technical know how, durable machine goods, industrial equipment, heavy trucks, etc. The formation of a strong trade relationship would also have a role in slowly thawing and eventually breaking the US-Chinese alliance against the USSR.

2. the warming of Soviet EC relations, again based on economic calculations. The US did everything they could to stall Soviet-European economic treaties, including the introduction of medium range nuclear and cruise missiles in Europe, the work to sabotage the Soviet energy pipeline network, and a coordinated campaign of of media outrage after the 1983 downing of KAL 007. Still, over the long term, growing economic integration would result in a European alliance hesitant to follow the US to the gates of hell for the sake of maintaining global geopolitical hegemony. I can't imagine complete finlandization of any major European nation, but cautious mutual respect together with economic trade would play a positive role in reducing US influence in European affairs.

3. the end of Apartheid in South Africa. This would inevitably occur sooner or later. In a world where Cuban and Soviet pressure wouldn't let up over Angola and Namibia, the white government may have resorted to more drastic and desperate steps to keep itself in power, but sooner or later, they would crumble, replaced at the minimum by a progressive ANC, and at the maximum by a radical dominated ANC. This would mean a tremendous victory over imperialism, as well as the taking of a territory whose global strategic value in terms of rare resources and trade routes is almost unparalleled.

4. the onset of the rose-coloured revolution in Latin America; again, the political landscape of Latin America today hasn't appeared out of nowhere, and even if under the guise of the Cold War the US focused more resources on defending its hemisphere from 'communist infiltration', the wellspring of Latin American socialism and progressivism would still rise up, perhaps with more violence resulting from local regimes unwilling to accept general progressive democratic revolutions (i.e. Chile).

5. the economic crisis that would inevitably hit the capitalist centers. Without the opening of new markets in Eastern Europe and much of the third world, this global crisis would hit sooner and, who knows -perhaps its result would be the turning of a Greece, an Italy or a Spain to neutrality or even some form of soft socialism. Depending on the circumstances, there would be a Socialist Bloc to turn to for any country experiencing such a revolution, and this would mean that economic isolation and political and military coercion threatening any country committing to such an undertaking today would be somewhat ameliorated by promises of Socialist Bloc support.

All these points combine toward challenging and seriously straining US financial, political and military supremacy in the world. With a strong socialist alternative, combined with rising regional powers striving for independence from imperialist financial and other interference -such as China, India, Iran, South Africa, etc. (a process that is taking place even today, minus the socialist superpower), who knows how long the hegemony of the US dollar would last. Without the ability to print money without suffering the consequences of inflation, and the ability to purchase real physical goods in exchange for their green papers, who knows how long the US-based capitalist center would last. And the more difficult things become for the imperialist superpower, the more difficult they would become for the other benefactors of the Western financial dominance of the globe -Western Europe, Japan, the Asian Tiger countries, Australia, etc.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 25 Jul 2014, 15:05
So, s78, I take it you don't think highly of those who would say that too much integration of planned economies with the world market is generally a harmful thing that will only serve to undermine them because they will tend to grow far too reliant on variables beyond their control? I would argue this is what happened to the GDR.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 Aug 2014, 16:25
Quote:
Is there a realistic possibility that communism may revive and achieve unprecedented power, possibly even global domination?

If You believe China is still Socialist/Marxist-Leninist, then Socialism already has with 20% of the World's Population and the world's largest economy. China's growth as a superpower is going to play a key role in the 21st Century.

The thing about Marxism-Leninism is that it's true, it's correct, and it works. Unlike Anarchism, there are currently existing Marxist-Leninist revolutions/insurgencies. In the Philipenes, in India, in Columbia etc. In Nepal they had a succesful revolution and Maoist parties dominate the political scene and are in a ruling coalition government. Cuba and the DPRK still exist. In Venezuala, Bolivia, Ecuador etc there are massive Socialist movements that have gained power. And then there is Vietnam, China, Laos, etc. China's growth into a world superpower (this year becoming the World's largest Economy) is an interesting development as is it's growing Maoist movement. There is a growing movement of Maoist students which may see some success. Likewise in the Ukraine many of the revolutionaries in Lugansk and Donetsk are Communists, Socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Trade Unionists etc. The fact they wish to establish a Union of People's Republics and fly the Red Banner, speaks vollumes.

Compare this increasing, growing Marxist-Leninist movement of ongoing Revolutions (some of which has already been victorious in some countries) to Anarchism. Anarchists haven't had a single successful revolution in the entire 150 years it's been a political ideology. Marxist-Leninists have had dozens of sucessful revolutions, (most of which lasted only several decades before being defeated by revisionism, granted) and a number of ongoing revolutions.

Having the Soviet Union, China, Eastern/Central Europe etc Socialist by 1950 seemed impossible to anybody living in 1914. We in 2014, can already see Capitalism's decline and multiple Marxist-Leninist states in existance, with ongoing revolutions and movements. By 2050 or 2060, the entire world may be ablaze in Revolution.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.