How come the East lost the Cold War to the West?
>>18476746Russia never had a chance of winning without a total nuclear war. they were too backwards and weak
>>18476746I am gonna try to be as respectful as possible since I know the 4chan audience are extremely conditioned by western propaganda and don't even know what Communism even is or means. I know it might be a lost cause, but remember, the USSR was fighting for its survival and the survival of Communism worldwide ALONE Gonna give a brief context of why Communism over other leftist ideologies like anarchism. Communism is the only leftist current that in practice had a plan to try and survive against a non cooperative west. That is the main struggle a Communist nation faces, inmediate survival against forces seeking to destroy it. Yes, capitalists are right that Commies aren't "owed" the right to access capitalist resources, and that is something Communists need to understand. The failure to set up a state that can function outside of capitalist systems eventually led to western loving leaders who wanted to reapproach capitalists, that is the moment Communism lost long before the collapse of the USSR.Now, CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST. The Sino-Soviet split was already well underway long before it was official. In every single conflict during the cold war, you will find China always took the side OPPOSITE TO THE SOVIETS. Always. The turn to the right by characters like Deng Xiaoping is simply a manifestation of the true ideology behind the leadership of the CPC, they want to be the new world police and saviors of the world under their Chinese rulership, they don't believe in internationalism or nations being equal. They want the spot of the usa, this is not schizo talk, this is what party officials have themselves said.The Soviet Union was sincerely trying to spread Communism abroad and supporting movements in whichever way they could. Again, that is a massive economical burden, they had to spend a lot in their own development and survival, while also spending a lot in international matters. They they were truly alone and the pressure eventually broke them.
>>18476775Do you not believe China was communist under Mao?What is your opinion on Khrushchev's repudiation of Stalin?
>>18476746uh socio-economic factors
>>18476746They stupidly got caught up in an arms race with the West that they had no hope of winning which costed too much money and absorbed too many resources, they made atrocious economic decisions beyond this, the Sino-Soviet split disrupted united between two biggest communist nations, and the Soviet Union in particular was made up of too many minority groups that loathed Russian dominance and wanted to separate from them.
>>18476746The USSR couldn't maintain the massive infrastructure needed to support its allies. It was fine in the 50s and 60s in the postwar boom, but it stagnated in the 70s and 80s when they needed to shift to a competitive tertiary economy to compete with the west and its jeans and mcdonalds. An Empire is a brand name after all, Britain needed its navy and industry, Rome needed its legions and pax romana trade network, with these broken down there would be insurrection from all the disparate elements that no longer need to abide by central authority. Russian nationalists themselves wanted to seize power let alone all the little republics.>>18476775Communism was just propaganda for run of the mill dictatorships. It may have influenced things like meme attempts to collectivize farms or an emphasis on state planning, but this had little effect on the grander scale of things. The hot air could have been anything else that LARPed as modern and "liberating" the massive manpower requirements of 20th century warfare while not being an actual democracy.Although some genuinely believed in it, there was never any hope of achieving an actual communist utopia, Marx's tomes contain little explanation on how to prevent Hobbesian hierarchical authoritarian regimes arising, communism was in fact favored over competing ideologies like anarchism or the moderate socialists for this reason. Lenin called it "bourgeois democracy", he did not want to give his mutineers ideas about democracy, he wanted to stir up anger over their poverty and low class status and not imagine they could vote him out if he didn't live up to the hype. He actually shut down the elections of the provisional government when they did not go his way and purged other left wing radicals. Planned economies also have difficulty when it comes to the tertiary sector, great for space programs and jet fighters, not so much for toothpaste and trainers.
>>18476746The USA is mostly Germanic that alone should explain it.
>>18476746aura loss
>>18476746The East turned itself into an isolated bunker waiting for a war that would never come. Then it bankrupted itself in a useless forever war in the middle east before promptly collapsing. Sounds a lot like the west these days.
>>18476746Because they fucking sucked at just about every aspect of running a nation and only managed to last that long through momentum and sheer stubbornness.
>>18476765Other way around. Between the 1950s and the 1980s the eastern bloc had the superior army, airforce, and navy. The US under Eisenhower didn't believe NATO could match the Soviet's conventional forces and decided to go all in on nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a Soviet invasion of western europe. During the 80s NATO surpassed the Soviets in military technology.
>>18476746The ussr partly disintegrated largely as a result in part from the soviet–afghan war
