marx_ex_machina

I was prompted to ask this question by listening to Season 3 of the Blowback podcast (fantastic podcast btw, I can’t believe I started listening to it until now), which is focused on the Korean War. One thing that stuck out to me was how reluctant Stalin was to give the DPRK Soviet support; he was possibly even willing to let the American occupiers be neighbors with the USSR if it meant he didn’t have to fight the US. He seemed to genuinely think he could engage in compromise with America.

This Western-friendly behavior from Stalin’s government wasn’t particularly new either. Prior to WWII, he reached out to the Brits/French/US to form a pact against Hitler, was rejected, and of course the Munich agreement followed and the Soviets settled with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

It is said Stalin greatly admired Roosevelt, and apparently even Churchill. After WWII, he and the US were able to agree on Austria being a neutral state, and Stalin really wanted a similarly neutral, unified Germany as well (this of course, the US would reject).

So that’s Stalin—genuinely seemed to think the West would act in good faith, but continuously got burned.

Fast-forward to the ‘90s, when much of the Russian/Soviet populace (especially Gorbachev) thought they too would get a liberalized, social-democracy with strong welfare and cheap commodities like Western Europe. Instead, Western financiers gutted their country and basically started the apocalypse until Putin comes along and stabilizes things.

But then Putin asks Bill Clinton if they can join NATO, gets burned again. Even several years ago, the Russians seemed to think the West would uphold their end of the Minsk 2 agreement, and now we have Merkel on tape saying that was never going to be the case. Only with the invasion of Ukraine does it seem like Russia has finally gotten the memo that the West will never act towards them in good faith (and even then, I’m not sure if that sentiment is resolute).

Compare this with other independent non-Western nations, such as China, the DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Burkina Faso under Traoré, etc. These nations exist on a spectrum, with the DPRK or Yemen being openly hostile towards NATO while China is eager to do business (but doesn’t seem to be under any illusion that it will get to join The Big Club).

So TLDR: it seems to me the Soviets/Russians have constantly engaged with the West in good faith, but always get burned. This stands in contrast to other independent countries which have always seemed much more cynical. Is it due to their relative proximity to whiteness? A lack of direct colonization? Why have the Russians constantly thought they would ever be considered equal partners with the West?

Hi all,

I’ve been a longtime lurker here and this is my first real post—I wanted to ask folks about the liberalization and subsequent destruction of the USSR versus Deng’s reforms in the PRC.

I know the USSR’s politburo was largely calcified near the end of its existence (with a lot of politicians being in their 60s-70s, lots of corruption, etc.) and the choice to both politically and economically liberalize is what put the last nail in the coffin for the USSR. From what I have read, the party basically gave its power away, let other parties run, and many old party members became part of the new bourgeois class. Most takes I see from other communists these days seem to be of the opinion that it’s the political liberalization that really killed the USSR, not necessarily just the economic opening up.

Which brings us to China: I think it’s an understatement to call the PRC’s development a miracle, and it seems like they’re going to continue a progressive path for the foreseeable future. Deng also opened things up, but in a much more controlled manner, with no political liberalization—it seems this is what has really contributed to the PRC’s success. Using the developmental ability of capital, while ensuring power remains in the hands of a state ideologically committed to improving material conditions, has worked well.

So my question then is: what allowed China’s political system to be adept at managing their economy without caving to bourgeois interests, compared to the USSR’s? What caused the USSR’s political system to fail compared to China’s? Does it have to do with policies made as far back as Stalin or Khrushchev? And what can a revolutionary socialist movement take away from this contrast to ensure it wouldn’t happen again in a (hypothetical) future?

Any responses or resources are greatly appreciated! Thank you.