Would the world be a better or worse place if the USSR won the cold war ?

would the world be a better or worse place if the USSR won the cold war ?

Other urls found in this thread:


Depends on like 10000 other factors


Yes, but only because full on fascism would have emerged in response and we could see the final showdown between Wojack and Pepe's political avatars


Anyone saying "worse" is a fool

the USSR forced Western countries to create welfare states to pacify their workers

define "won"

Ever wonder why movie The Grapes of Wrath got banned in the USSR later on? Yeah.

Overall, it wouldn't be worse or better because it'll still be a state playing hegemon that still be in the US-Russia position because of nuclear weapons but don't expect to own a car.

Grapes of Wrath is a shitty book.

Even if you are an ML tankie you have to admit that post-Stalin USSR was shit a pile of shit.
So, no, it wouldn't.

define winning the cold war

Depends where. For example, USSR winning would prevent all that shitflinging in the Middle East if Ba'athists triumphed and Gulf state royals got shot. Latin America wouldn't be used for crack and bananas, so it'd be probably a bit better too. Perhaps american blacks wouldn't be so shit if they didn't have socialism replaced with Nicaraguan cocaine. Europe's quality would depend on the shape USSR took in such reality and if the Western Europe has gotten under USSR's influence or remained "independent".
Korea naturally gets better because thanks to Best Korea's triumph.

Im going to go for an edgy answer and say yes.

For my non edgy answer im also going to say yes, because then at least we would not have reverted back to capitalism, but instead reject the USSR and its legacy and try something else with our new experience of living under a failed attempt at socialism.

DDR-lead germany would have been many times better than current germany.

USA becomes socialist somehow.


It depends. Would the new socialist USA be a socialist democracy? Would the soviet union gradually democratize? Would workers actually control the means of production in the soviet union, USSA and satellite states?

a socialist usa probably won't be or be as much of authoritarian shitshow as the ussr because it doesn't need to do stalinesque industrial buildup because it already has easily socialized industrial, agricultural and distibution channels. it also doesn't need to worry about being invaded by a counter revolution because of the ocean and because the revolution will almost immediatly spread to mexico and canada.

the ussr would probably democratize because the government won't be able to justify the massive authoritarian state now that the heart of nato has been cut out.

beat me to it

It would have been objectively better for the world to exchanged nuclear strikes, the world needed more horror in the 20th century not to make it an abstraction.

The Cuban Missile Crisis should have ended in nuclear strikes in Florida, South Carolina, and killed millions, and nukes then should have hit Russia, and subsequently other nations.

Two wasn't enough.

Now we're in such a position people have forgotten and militancy isn't anything but an abstraction and politics, when it is the primary force of Capitalist income. Without today's military industrial complex, Capitalism would die just as quickly as if banking were out of the equation.

In a strictly non-posadist sense, Nuclear War would have helped the world grow. Not because of Aliens or any other such joke, but it would have prevented Capital from ever, ever creating the market for war via free money for weapons development we have today, and withotu that, no more war in the Middle East endlessly creating militants.

The Soviets' biggest failure, was not attacking the United States directly in all out warfare, as it creating a bigger problem for us, the future generation, later on. Weaponry as commodity was not seen as the serious problem it was.

The biggest reason the USSR had problems was that it was under constant siege. If the USSR had definitively defeated capitalism, they could have had a proper "glasnost" without falling apart.

However, the material conditions of the last century really were not very conducive to communism. Machine learning hadn't been invented yet, so the abolition of labor was basically impossible. The USSR made gains because of the major crises of the era, and it proved that a worker's state of some kind was possible, but it had a lot going against it.

In this century, full automation is a real possibility, and global warming is going to create a crisis to equal the two World Wars, and possibly even lead to a third World War. With crisis AND the material conditions on our side, communism has a higher chance than ever of succeeding, in spite of how weak the left seems right now.

Your brain on Leninism

Is calling everything you disagree with social democracy/state capitalism the standard leftcom/anarchist practice?

It literally was Social Democracy at the barrel of a gun though. The workers did not own the means of production and nothing of what actually happened actually helped the communist cause..

Yes, how nu r u?

nuclear winter though


You're an idiot, it was socialism.
Also didn't Lenin already BTFO your lot in 1920?

This is just pointless nitpicking. The party was comprised of workers and ruled society in favour of the workers, coordinated production to favour them and not the overthrown bourgeoisie/aristocracy etc.

You can theorise all you want but until the state dissolves, which it will after a period of a socialist state and repression of the bourgeoisie, there will always be some degree of division and hierarchy.

"Workers owning the means of production" is a meaningless phrase and used to weasel out of the Soviet Union's nasty side. Appealing to bourgeois morality by painting socialist states as "social democracy at the barrel of a gun" just serves capitalist ends. You will never make the bourgeoisie think it was that, because they themselves know those states were socialist and it terrified the, hence why they tried to put down the revolution in 1918 and have tried to subvert all socialist states ever since, right up to the present day with Cuba.

What is required for the "workers to own the means of production" exactly? In a large scale society, a degree of delegation of power and vertical management is simply necessary. A state must be created that is capable of marshalling the productive forces and repelling imperialism. Only when all capitalist authorities are overthrown and crushed out of existence will the state and party no longer be needed.

You will never have workers directly controlling the means of production as you envisage, at least in the sense of each one individually controlling his workplace.

Ah yes, Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder, which as we all know destroyed left communists movements all around the worls. It's not like Gorter BTFO'ed it in Open Letter to Comrade Lenin or anything.


so why is Left Communism dead while Marxism-Leninism still guides at least one state (Cuba) and once dominated a third of the world?

Cuba is being eaten away by Capitalism and North Korea is batshit insane, everything else is Capitalist.

It's relatively easy to see that state controlled labor movements suffer all the weaknesses of being centralized and state controlled.

They are precarious and easy to be subverted or destroyed and wiped out all at once and taken over by the West.

As opposed to the uselessness of anarchism and revisionist communism? What have they ever done that can be compared to the USSR?

Ya big babeh leftcoms can never achieve anything even worse than anarkiddies

All revolutions, and all labor movements, have all accomplished what they accomplished, because they did it collectively without a state

And yes user, that does include the Russian Revolution and all revolts that lead up to it in Russia, all the labor movements that ended the Industrial Revolution in the West, what kept radical China marching on towards Maoism, and the Kurdish movement we have today

They were all decentralized and all sparse at first. China particularly an interesting example seeing as how long they were on the run for before they took state control.

And all made the same mistake. They worked towards state control.

State control, while noble a pursuit, can only last out for so long. Because Capitalism can subvert everything centralized quite easily.

History tells a story that is not on the side of the state, but on the side of who achieve it, even if they want a state.

Not even a leftcom but there's literally zero difference between this and the shitty "Communism has never worked" argument used by conservatives.

communism has worked though

left communism hasn't because it has never been put into practice and never will

Not disputing that, I'm just saying it's retarded to get uber triggered when conservatives say it but then turn around and use the exact same argument.

Former workers are not workers. The "party" was the problem.

how were they not workers? plannin an economy for a country of 290 million people is a job that will inevitably need bureaucracy

When one starts to own the means of production over another, I say that's suspicious.

Still, even if you deny that's what occured, it's safe to say the problem with the USSR from a strategic standpoint was its bluff for war without declaring war in totality as the West was doing, and also, centralizing and becoming a state.

It worked to both their advantage in the begining and slowly their disadvantage.

Which is not to say I do not respect revolutions or revolutionaries, I simply do not see a way to centralize your movement once it gains control and offering yourself up to the Western capitalist world as bait and chum to the sharks they are.

The most effective combat strategy has always been decentralized, what you would, and what would conventionally be conceived of, as weak.