this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
83 points (98.8% liked)
podcasts
20034 readers
32 users here now
Podcast recommendations, episode discussions, and struggle sessions about which shows need to be cancelled.
Rest In Power, Michael Brooks.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USSR would've had a better chance at pulling through by simply keeping to themselves and developing production instead of engaging in adventurism abroad.
Sure, let's just damn every person that's been helped by the home of the revolution. Let every spark be smothered in the tinder pile.
Their adventurism ended up damning their own nation and discrediting socialism all around the world, i definitely do not want China to repeat this historical blunder.
Their "historical blunder" is why the People's Republic of China actually exists and isn't a hyper-exploited resource and labor colony of the west. The same for Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam and every people that had received the aid of the Soviets whether they still exist or don't.
The faithful execution of communist internationalism is not a blunder, it is an obligation.
Yeah I mean, the Soviets have their flaws, but a commitment to international socialism was not one of them.
I don't think this is quite fair, the Chinese communists spent over two decades of struggle fighting US, nationalist, and japanese imperialism to establish the PRC. The USSR didn't do the heavy lifting for them in any of that.
You're discounting the funding, training, supplies, dispatched agents, diplomatic maneuvering etc. that the CPC and KMT had received through out the history of the communist movement in China from the USSR. The CPC without the USSR at their back would've been most likely would have been significantly hamstrung to the point I doubt they would have enough cohesion to survive past 1925. The KMT without the USSR would've been most likely smothered by one of the southern warlords and would not have been, for the short time it was, united with the CPC and grow and nurture each other until the death of Sun Yat-sen. China would have been easy prey for the Japanese imperialists to pluck apart in such a manner that would make the British subjugation of India pale in comparison to the barbarity that would've been emplaced on the Chinese people.
The Chinese revolution succeeded because of the blood they had shed, but without the Soviets to help nurture the spark that was born of the May 4th movement there would most likely not been such a revolution in the first place.
What damned the USSR was the sheer scale of damage to the social fabric caused by WW2. The death of millions of the most committed communists let revisionists like Krushchev into the seats of power, and led to the separation of the party from the people. You got a stagnating economy (that is, stagnating compared to the earlier USSR, rather than, for instance, the US today) because Stalin was the last actual trained Marxist to hold power, and the leaders afterwards didn't understand the machine they were at the controls of. They could no longer consciously manage the structures of society or the party, and so internal forces grew that combined with external forces to rip the Union apart. But it certainly wasn't because they took a principled stance of helping socialists around the world. Even the intervention in Afghanistan, which supposedly finished the USSR off, was a disaster due to mismanagement and taking the wrong strategic approach, not because it was some kind of totally unwinnable scenario.
In what way?
What basis does this claim have? You do realise that the demonisation of socialism and violent suppression of socialists predate the USSR, right?