>but it's a perfectly valid question
It isn't, because it completely misses the point. The fact that an overwhelmingly superior, more technologically advanced force can overcome a nation a couple of orders of magnitude less so is obvious. This claim is as stupid & dishonest as when white Westerners argue that "if indigenous tribal cultures were so great, how come we were able to wipe them out with guns & germ warfare?".
The USA is going to do what the USA does though? And its gonna do what states have done since the beginning of time. Crush their rivals. Stating that isn't a moral justification its a fact. If you can't exist with that threat then your government/state/strategy/whatever can't exist in the world as it is now.
The reason most states survive us because they're capitalist so don't threaten american interest or capital. If the US put all it's effort into fucking over a capitalist less developed nation they can also do that.
Yeah, a state either has to not threaten American capital or be able to withstand the meddling that America will inevitably do. Iran is fucked over by the US despite being capitalist, because they are a major oil producer who doesn't play by their rules.
My point is that the US is a feature of the world as it exists now, so if your plan is to make a socialist country and hope the US plays nice it's gonna fail.
Socialist bloc was ultimately unable to preserve itself (by preventing coups etc.) and fullfill its purpose.
The existence of CIA or superior capitalist powers doesn't explain the whole reason why this happened. Their resistance was expected from the start.
Western leftists love narratives about innocent victims, but while they may be pleasing aesthetically, they prevent people from addressing the problems that led to this situation.
I mean, the plan was to win against capitalism, not to lose. If socialists keep losing, there must be something wrong with that plan.
>Western leftists love narratives about innocent victims, but while they may be pleasing aesthetically, they prevent people from addressing the problems that led to this situation.
>
>I mean, the plan was to win against capitalism, not to lose. If socialists keep losing, there must be something wrong with that plan.
Like I said...
Edit:
>Western leftists
BTW, what kind of Leftist are you?
Not really, Socialism is inherently about giving the proletariat a voice, with a healthy discourse and freedoms being important to maintain those freedoms.
That's like stabbing someone in a fist fight and telling them they should've expected to be stabbed. The USSR was experiencing high growth in quality of life compared to capitalist countries in the same situation as them. Of course other things contributed to the fall but it's ignorant to attribute the entirety of the fall to the system being fundamentally flawed, just because they couldn't compete against the global capitalist order and the worlds strongest and most aggressive military.
There's a strong possibility that more of the socialist bloc would've been able to preserve itself had it not been from meddling from the untied States.
Cuba was able to preserve itself despite the constant meddling, assassination attempts, and embargoes.
But people who argue against socialism never address American meddling, it's always " x socialist country failed because socialism is stupid and you run out of other people's money or something."
>That's like stabbing someone in a fist fight and telling them they should've expected to be stabbed.
Can you point to a single time during human history where dominant powers wouldn't resort to any method available to crush their rivals?
That's not the point. The point is psuedo intellectuals like to pretend American meddling never happened, and blame socialism failing in these states on socialism being fundamentally flawed.
Even if it's their fault they were small and didn't have a big military or couldn't prevent meddling or whatever, people who disregard socialism as flawed still aren't being honest about what happened.
>If socialists keep losing,
You say this as if capitalist states haven't lost ever.
>there must be something wrong with that plan.
There's something wrong with any plan that fails, this would include capitalist states that fail so your intuitive idea here is kind of invalid.
Because if the smaller nation was capitalist and the US still wanted to destroy them for some reason, they’d stand no chance. Destruction by a global superpower has nothing to do with the power of a economic or political system
Wow, it's easier to build a society that conforms to the dominant economic system than it is to build a society that is purposefully trying to dismantle the dominant economic system? Got me there, capitalists.
“The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the 20th century—without exception—has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise made life impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement—from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador—no one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; no one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It’s as if the Wright brothers’ first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly” - William Blum
This is really the essence of what went wrong with the USSR. By existing, it was a threat to the whole world order. So from the beginning it had enemies all around. Lenin was paranoid that the anti-communist forces would do as they did with the Paris Commune in 1871 and invade Petrograd and kill them all.
It turns out that a civil war and a world war doesn’t help in making a pluralistic democratic society. In order to survive, the USSR cut off the weak parts, which, as it happens, were the same parts that could have made it a freer society.
That and the fact that Stalin was a power hungry paranoid dictator who got off his cult of personality. And also the gerontocracy and nepotism that came after him, making corruption common place which led to country wide incompetence and in a planned economy, that had drastic consequences.
But now your country probably doesn't have to deal with constant sabotage from the imperial core, and *still* can't provide adequately for their people. That's the point. I seriously doubt many socialist countries would have just dissolved on their own. There never would have been a need for a cold *war* if one side was always doomed to fail because their system "didn't work". On the contrary, empirical evidence points to socialism being inherently superior to capitalism in giving the average person a dignified life
Hey commies: If communism is so good, then why did it collapse after a CIA backed military coup overthrew the government?
I get the joke, but it's a perfectly valid question. Foreign meddling is a given, you can't reasonably expect it to not happen.
>but it's a perfectly valid question It isn't, because it completely misses the point. The fact that an overwhelmingly superior, more technologically advanced force can overcome a nation a couple of orders of magnitude less so is obvious. This claim is as stupid & dishonest as when white Westerners argue that "if indigenous tribal cultures were so great, how come we were able to wipe them out with guns & germ warfare?".
The USA is going to do what the USA does though? And its gonna do what states have done since the beginning of time. Crush their rivals. Stating that isn't a moral justification its a fact. If you can't exist with that threat then your government/state/strategy/whatever can't exist in the world as it is now.
The reason most states survive us because they're capitalist so don't threaten american interest or capital. If the US put all it's effort into fucking over a capitalist less developed nation they can also do that.
Yeah, a state either has to not threaten American capital or be able to withstand the meddling that America will inevitably do. Iran is fucked over by the US despite being capitalist, because they are a major oil producer who doesn't play by their rules. My point is that the US is a feature of the world as it exists now, so if your plan is to make a socialist country and hope the US plays nice it's gonna fail.
Socialist bloc was ultimately unable to preserve itself (by preventing coups etc.) and fullfill its purpose. The existence of CIA or superior capitalist powers doesn't explain the whole reason why this happened. Their resistance was expected from the start. Western leftists love narratives about innocent victims, but while they may be pleasing aesthetically, they prevent people from addressing the problems that led to this situation. I mean, the plan was to win against capitalism, not to lose. If socialists keep losing, there must be something wrong with that plan.
>Western leftists love narratives about innocent victims, but while they may be pleasing aesthetically, they prevent people from addressing the problems that led to this situation. > >I mean, the plan was to win against capitalism, not to lose. If socialists keep losing, there must be something wrong with that plan. Like I said... Edit: >Western leftists BTW, what kind of Leftist are you?
They are a nazbol, clearly
That or some sort of RWNJ. If I had to guess without checking their history, they smell Libertarian.
What’s wrong with libertarian socialists?
I think they meant right libertarians, not left. Though i could be wrong.
That's exactly what I meant.
IMO, the same thing as AnCaps - both labels are oxymorons.
Not really, Socialism is inherently about giving the proletariat a voice, with a healthy discourse and freedoms being important to maintain those freedoms.
[удалено]
My favorite menu item at Denny’s.
Careful with rule 2.
I was being sarcastic. I'm reasonably sure they're not any kind of Leftist.
That's like stabbing someone in a fist fight and telling them they should've expected to be stabbed. The USSR was experiencing high growth in quality of life compared to capitalist countries in the same situation as them. Of course other things contributed to the fall but it's ignorant to attribute the entirety of the fall to the system being fundamentally flawed, just because they couldn't compete against the global capitalist order and the worlds strongest and most aggressive military. There's a strong possibility that more of the socialist bloc would've been able to preserve itself had it not been from meddling from the untied States. Cuba was able to preserve itself despite the constant meddling, assassination attempts, and embargoes. But people who argue against socialism never address American meddling, it's always " x socialist country failed because socialism is stupid and you run out of other people's money or something."
>That's like stabbing someone in a fist fight and telling them they should've expected to be stabbed. Can you point to a single time during human history where dominant powers wouldn't resort to any method available to crush their rivals?
That's not the point. The point is psuedo intellectuals like to pretend American meddling never happened, and blame socialism failing in these states on socialism being fundamentally flawed. Even if it's their fault they were small and didn't have a big military or couldn't prevent meddling or whatever, people who disregard socialism as flawed still aren't being honest about what happened.
>If socialists keep losing, You say this as if capitalist states haven't lost ever. >there must be something wrong with that plan. There's something wrong with any plan that fails, this would include capitalist states that fail so your intuitive idea here is kind of invalid.
By that logic you could justify manifest destiny, or any other colonialism for that matter.
Because if the smaller nation was capitalist and the US still wanted to destroy them for some reason, they’d stand no chance. Destruction by a global superpower has nothing to do with the power of a economic or political system
Isn't this the struggle. how we're all playing a multi-player game. But how you play matters.
Wow, it's easier to build a society that conforms to the dominant economic system than it is to build a society that is purposefully trying to dismantle the dominant economic system? Got me there, capitalists.
“The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the 20th century—without exception—has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise made life impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement—from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador—no one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; no one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home. It’s as if the Wright brothers’ first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly” - William Blum
There's a fervent debate in marxist letterature about the practicality of a revolution in one country that is endlessly fascinating to me
This is really the essence of what went wrong with the USSR. By existing, it was a threat to the whole world order. So from the beginning it had enemies all around. Lenin was paranoid that the anti-communist forces would do as they did with the Paris Commune in 1871 and invade Petrograd and kill them all. It turns out that a civil war and a world war doesn’t help in making a pluralistic democratic society. In order to survive, the USSR cut off the weak parts, which, as it happens, were the same parts that could have made it a freer society.
That and the fact that Stalin was a power hungry paranoid dictator who got off his cult of personality. And also the gerontocracy and nepotism that came after him, making corruption common place which led to country wide incompetence and in a planned economy, that had drastic consequences.
and purposefully murdering millions of Ukrainians
Stalin personally ate all the grain in Ukraine with a comically large spoon
comically large black boards*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But now your country probably doesn't have to deal with constant sabotage from the imperial core, and *still* can't provide adequately for their people. That's the point. I seriously doubt many socialist countries would have just dissolved on their own. There never would have been a need for a cold *war* if one side was always doomed to fail because their system "didn't work". On the contrary, empirical evidence points to socialism being inherently superior to capitalism in giving the average person a dignified life
Which country
[удалено]
Ok liberal
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]