3 ms·

This is not what history tells. What we get is: the only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a var

This is not what history tells. What we get is: the only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a variation of Marxism with revolutionary origin. Countries that did not followed this path, failed to threaten western hegemony. Despite some of them managing to get some wealth becoming partners of the west if they have a communist neighbor, at the cost of having a subordinate relationship, forfeiting some sovereignty and military control so that they cannot threaten western hegemony. When Russia embraced capitalism, they become a shadow of what they once where, and the main threat to West hegemony is now a socialist country that managed to retain and adapt their communist path to the change of times. This is confirmed by the western actions, that always resort to violence to prevent marxist parties to have influence in any country and create strong economic sieges against the ones that succeed, instead of encouraging them.

southernplaces7 2y ago
What you say is mostly either mistaken or blindly ideological nonsense. In the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, Russia was one of the most powerful economies in the world. Under Marxist rule it first fell backward severely and only later, at immense cost in human lives and waste, industrialized and militarized to a level strong enough to make it a political competitor of the United States. However, during this prolonged period of industrialized communist administration, it slowly hollowed itself out until (without taking a more market oriented path, regardless of what political system it maintained), the USSR was a shell masquerading as a powerful force, leading to its economic collapse. The country could have maintained the communist facade and authoritarian government, while streamlining internally through capitalistic mechanisms, but it didn't before simply dissolving, and thus the sheer poverty that it had brought itself to, absent real economic reforms, was laid bare by the end of the 1980's. Had the Russian Empire simply maintained the pseudo-capitalistic system under authoritarian rule that was the case under the czars, or even embraced the progressive liberal socialist (but partly capitalist) system that it was starting to develop between the February 1917 revolution and the Bolshevik coup of late 1917, Russia could have grown enormously and early as both an economic and political power in a way that would have made it into a very strong power indeed leading up to the 21st century. It was soviet communism that slowly destroyed it, but first it did make it stronger through the sheer brute force of command industrialization and militarization at all costs, these mainly being huge and completely unsustainable costs in resources, sound economic practice and human life. This industrialized strengthening under a communist command economy was not at all sustainable for the long run in the case of the USSR. It had no choice but to either rot and collapse, or reform into a guided authoritarian market economy as happened in China (coming to that momentarily) The chaotic lunacy of post-1991 Russia had little to do with any sort of functional, organized market system. It was instead closer to a stateless anarchy with a minimal, dysfunctional facade of a working central government riding on top of it. It was only after consolidation of administrative control under Putin that Russia started to redevelop economically, though still very imperfectly because under Putin too, things remain deeply corrupt, often poorly administered, though more functional and closely controlled by central authority than they were under Yeltsin. In the case of China, it only became a truly serious competitor to U.S. dominance once it started embracing market economics and completely abandoning centralized, command economy communism as of the 1980's. Prior to that, with the exception of a very big army and possession of the nuclear bomb (produced also at huge human cost), it was in most ways a very backward, clumsy power, albeit one with enough sheer weight to have at least some regional push. Modern China is by far closer to a fascist, authoritarian capitalist economy than a country following anything resembling a communist path. In other words, it has more in common with the Nationalist system envisioned (but very, very ineptly implemented) by Chiang Kai Shek than with anything that the Marxist Chairman Mao had in mind. If the ghosts of both men are by chance wandering the landscape of modern China, I think it would be Chiang who you'd find nodding in approval much more often than Mao. Ironic really, but definitely not a case of capitalism weakening political power.
- thiagoharry 2y ago
  Telling a long story do not transform it in true. Your story is more based on western ideology in propaganda. Notice that it was not able to neither explain nor counter the facts that supports my version: * The west is very afraid when a competitor follows Marxism. It is something that it tries to avoid at all costs, and employs the maximum violence to prevent any country to become communist. A country becoming fascist? Not a big deal. Religious fanatics is taking the power? Well, the west helped a lot of them in the past and in the present. But becoming communist? This never is allowed. * The only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a variation of Marxism with revolutionary origin. These two facts are completely at odds with your explanation. You defend that Marxism was detrimental to the development of the countries. Of course, everyone agrees, even Marxists, that the years following a revolution are very hard and it takes time to recover, both because of the internal struggle, and because the western countries launch a violent offensive trying to destroy by military force the revolution. And yet, even with this problem, no non-western country ever was able to threaten western hegemony, except after adopting Marxist theory. And several of them tried. Russia was a feudal country at the time of revolution. It was in the past considered a traditional and powerful country, but at the time they had become very backward country, with feudal serfdom and very little industries. This can be seen in how humiliatingly they lost a war with Japan. Japan, and all European countries were much more modern than Russia. And after revolution, in some decades, they were sending satellites to space, spaceships to the moon, before all other countries, even USA. This is a fact. You can use the "No true Scotsman" argument, saying that they are not capitalist enough, and this explains why they are a shadow of their past. But when they were more capitalist? At that time in the past, when they were doing huge leaps and developing at astonishing speed or nowadays? You talk a lot about "huge human costs". You are aware that capitalism genocided an entire continent to develop, right? And after this, for a long time, we had first slavery, then brutal colonialism, followed by great war between capitalist powers disputing colonies and markets... I do not know any other system that had a so high human cost. Moreover,having markets it is not at odds with Marxism and communism. Even Lenin tried to develop some form of marked based on cooperatives in USSR. True communist cannot succeed isolated in a capitalist world anyway. In my definition, what defines a country as socialist, (or "communist" using the naming more common in USA) is which is the dominant class. The bourgeoisie in China indeed have power and is taken into account, but I do not think that the country is ruled by bourgeoisie and the capital, like in capitalist countries. But I know that this is a polemic opinion. Anyway, they still have five-year plans and centralize long-term decisions. And indeed, they are being successful into achieving their long-term centralized goals.

southernplaces7 2y ago

What you say is mostly either mistaken or blindly ideological nonsense. In the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, Russia was one of the most powerful economies in the world. Under Marxist rule it first fell backward severely and only later, at immense cost in human lives and waste, industrialized and militarized to a level strong enough to make it a political competitor of the United States. However, during this prolonged period of industrialized communist administration, it slowly hollowed itself out until (without taking a more market oriented path, regardless of what political system it maintained), the USSR was a shell masquerading as a powerful force, leading to its economic collapse. The country could have maintained the communist facade and authoritarian government, while streamlining internally through capitalistic mechanisms, but it didn't before simply dissolving, and thus the sheer poverty that it had brought itself to, absent real economic reforms, was laid bare by the end of the 1980's. Had the Russian Empire simply maintained the pseudo-capitalistic system under authoritarian rule that was the case under the czars, or even embraced the progressive liberal socialist (but partly capitalist) system that it was starting to develop between the February 1917 revolution and the Bolshevik coup of late 1917, Russia could have grown enormously and early as both an economic and political power in a way that would have made it into a very strong power indeed leading up to the 21st century. It was soviet communism that slowly destroyed it, but first it did make it stronger through the sheer brute force of command industrialization and militarization at all costs, these mainly being huge and completely unsustainable costs in resources, sound economic practice and human life. This industrialized strengthening under a communist command economy was not at all sustainable for the long run in the case of the USSR. It had no choice but to either rot and collapse, or reform into a guided authoritarian market economy as happened in China (coming to that momentarily) The chaotic lunacy of post-1991 Russia had little to do with any sort of functional, organized market system. It was instead closer to a stateless anarchy with a minimal, dysfunctional facade of a working central government riding on top of it. It was only after consolidation of administrative control under Putin that Russia started to redevelop economically, though still very imperfectly because under Putin too, things remain deeply corrupt, often poorly administered, though more functional and closely controlled by central authority than they were under Yeltsin. In the case of China, it only became a truly serious competitor to U.S. dominance once it started embracing market economics and completely abandoning centralized, command economy communism as of the 1980's. Prior to that, with the exception of a very big army and possession of the nuclear bomb (produced also at huge human cost), it was in most ways a very backward, clumsy power, albeit one with enough sheer weight to have at least some regional push. Modern China is by far closer to a fascist, authoritarian capitalist economy than a country following anything resembling a communist path. In other words, it has more in common with the Nationalist system envisioned (but very, very ineptly implemented) by Chiang Kai Shek than with anything that the Marxist Chairman Mao had in mind. If the ghosts of both men are by chance wandering the landscape of modern China, I think it would be Chiang who you'd find nodding in approval much more often than Mao. Ironic really, but definitely not a case of capitalism weakening political power.

thiagoharry 2y ago
Telling a long story do not transform it in true. Your story is more based on western ideology in propaganda. Notice that it was not able to neither explain nor counter the facts that supports my version: * The west is very afraid when a competitor follows Marxism. It is something that it tries to avoid at all costs, and employs the maximum violence to prevent any country to become communist. A country becoming fascist? Not a big deal. Religious fanatics is taking the power? Well, the west helped a lot of them in the past and in the present. But becoming communist? This never is allowed. * The only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a variation of Marxism with revolutionary origin. These two facts are completely at odds with your explanation. You defend that Marxism was detrimental to the development of the countries. Of course, everyone agrees, even Marxists, that the years following a revolution are very hard and it takes time to recover, both because of the internal struggle, and because the western countries launch a violent offensive trying to destroy by military force the revolution. And yet, even with this problem, no non-western country ever was able to threaten western hegemony, except after adopting Marxist theory. And several of them tried. Russia was a feudal country at the time of revolution. It was in the past considered a traditional and powerful country, but at the time they had become very backward country, with feudal serfdom and very little industries. This can be seen in how humiliatingly they lost a war with Japan. Japan, and all European countries were much more modern than Russia. And after revolution, in some decades, they were sending satellites to space, spaceships to the moon, before all other countries, even USA. This is a fact. You can use the "No true Scotsman" argument, saying that they are not capitalist enough, and this explains why they are a shadow of their past. But when they were more capitalist? At that time in the past, when they were doing huge leaps and developing at astonishing speed or nowadays? You talk a lot about "huge human costs". You are aware that capitalism genocided an entire continent to develop, right? And after this, for a long time, we had first slavery, then brutal colonialism, followed by great war between capitalist powers disputing colonies and markets... I do not know any other system that had a so high human cost. Moreover,having markets it is not at odds with Marxism and communism. Even Lenin tried to develop some form of marked based on cooperatives in USSR. True communist cannot succeed isolated in a capitalist world anyway. In my definition, what defines a country as socialist, (or "communist" using the naming more common in USA) is which is the dominant class. The bourgeoisie in China indeed have power and is taken into account, but I do not think that the country is ruled by bourgeoisie and the capital, like in capitalist countries. But I know that this is a polemic opinion. Anyway, they still have five-year plans and centralize long-term decisions. And indeed, they are being successful into achieving their long-term centralized goals.