How could the Soviet Union have won The Cold War?
>>501128
As in the last thread before it went to shit, the 1956 pan european revolution is a pretty good point.
1949 PUSH is viable
1968 is pretty much the last chance.
>implying they lost
>implying they weren't only pretending
In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[15] wherein he warned about a long-term deception strategy of seeming retreat from hard-line Communism designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The "liberalization" would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role: its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power, and the president of the Soviet Union and the first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be "reformed." Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government.
Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers' unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties.
There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and Unitized Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.",[16]
Angleton and Golitsyn reportedly sought the assistance of William F. Buckley, Jr. (who once worked for the CIA) in writing New Lies for Old. Buckley refused but later went on to write a novel about Angleton, Spytime: The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton
>>501159
>When they barely had nuclear weapons?
Winning the cold war isn't about nuclear weapons for the Soviet Union, it is about revolutions in the Western metropole.
PCI, KKE, PCF, CPGB, CPA, CPNZ were all stacked to go. Stalin's fucking flipflops were the problem.
>>501162
the only thing russia is pretending is that Putin is elected, and honestly I really don't know why they even bother with that
Russia lost its empire, its relevance as a global superpower, and its political ideology. Now all it offers the world is energy and organized crime. How is that not losing?
>>501167
Local democratic movements, with the help of the US and the CIA, were doing a pretty good job of nullifying political movements in the countries that mattered. European integration projects that promoted free markets/trade were also a great at keeping Communism at bay.
>>501182
>eu isn't backdoor gommunism
They're going to try again. Russia will go back to the USSR, only learning from it's mistakes. Religion, for instance: Putin is very supportive of the Orthodox Church, yet says the USSR breaking up was a "great tragedy". Father Vsevolod Chaplin, formerly the leader of the department for relation between Church and society, said a pro-religious USSR would be ideal, because capitalist elites in Russia need to be stopped.
The USSR fugged up so hard in Afghanistan it had to go into remission, but it will return.
>>501162
Have you actually read this book or just the Wikipedia article on the author?
>>501182
>Local democratic movements, with the help of the US and the CIA
Not really. The CIA co-thinkers were mostly founded 1949, cf: ASIO. The period 1944-1949 was a really good chance for a global revolution frittered away by the [Soviet] Stalinists due to their nationalist bourgeois class interests.
>>501182
>European integration projects that promoted free markets/trade were also a great at keeping Communism at bay.
>Marshall programme effective: April 3, 1948
Dubious, discuss.
>>501197
I'm still plowing through it. He's the patrician Yuri Bezmenov.
>>501193
It's not backdoor communism now, it certainly wasn't in the 50s or 60s. Anyway, I wasn't talking about the EEC, I was talking about the ECSC, OSCE, NATO.
>>501196
seems unlikely, considering Putin himself is an oligarch who has enriched himself to an obscene degree by robbing the country blind
that doesn't seem like someone who has much interest in communism to me, if anything he wants to restore imperial russia
>>501219
Socialism and Czarism are not strictly incompatible. Dostoevsky, for instance, was a very firm socialist who vocally opposed serfdom (which was abolished in his lifetime), but he was also a monarchist.
>>501199
>The period 1944-1949 was a really good chance for a global revolution frittered away by the [Soviet] Stalinists due to their nationalist bourgeois class interests.
It was but central Europa was also still occupied by Western Forces that weren't going to let that happen. When I mentioned nuclear weapons before I wasn't talking about using them, they were merely deterrence.
>Dubious, discuss.
The Marshall Plan and the OSCE were created to promote, among other things, adherence to a Western economic and democratic values. Even though they only started in the late 40s, they helped keep Europe insulated from Sovietization in later decades. It would be easy to make a case for Communism in war torn 40s Europe, not in economic boom 50s and 60s Europe.
>>501162
>merely pretending
>>501231
>It was but central Europa was also still occupied by Western Forces that weren't going to let that happen. When I mentioned nuclear weapons before I wasn't talking about using them, they were merely deterrence.
Nuclear weapons didn't deter the nomenklatura's liberation of China or attempted liberation of Korea.
Nuclear weapons didn't deter the 1949-195x Soviet plan for a multiple eschelon invasion of Yugoslavia.
Paper tiger.
>>501231
>not in economic boom 50s and 60s Europe.
Italy, France, Greece. None of them were booming in the 50s or 60s. '68 was as much about the lack of consumer products for french workers as pissed off students.
But I agree, the US's cohering of the Western states does make 56 in the West and 68 in the West more tenuous, but taking advantage of communisation and workers democracy as offered in those moments for the East would produce a vast change in the west.
1956 alone basically kick started libertarian communism.
>>501128
Economically, industrially - wasn't going to happen. Command economies historically pale in comparison to flourishing markets like those seen in the west.
Militarily's a different ballgame. Assuming a purely conventional conflict - which wouldn't happen, they for sure could have taken Europe up to the late 70s, and would manage to fight NATO to the Rhine in the late 80's, up until the collapse of the Warsaw pact. Which, again, assumes a conventional conflict.
>>501313
>Command economies historically pale
"The Firm" is a command economy.
The US military industrial complex was a command economy
You're bloody ignorant about economic history
>>501270
>Nuclear weapons didn't deter the nomenklatura's liberation of China or attempted liberation of Korea.
It wasn't a priority for the US in 1949, looking back probably a huge mistake.
>Nuclear weapons didn't deter the 1949-195x Soviet plan for a multiple eschelon invasion of Yugoslavia.
This was more of a blunder than anything else but again, not a priority.
>Italy, France, Greece. None of them were booming in the 50s or 60s
That's somewhat true, France was well on its way Italy not so much. But they stood to benefit from the EEC, at least France, in the form of farm subsidies, and Italy, in the form of regional development funding. Greece was touch and go for a while but the Military Junta put and end to that in the late 60s.
>>501326
It is more correct to say that Western Europe stabilised politically in "post-"Fordism, excepting the United Kingdom where the union movement was crushed by Maggie.
>>501321
Relationship between government and its economy =/= countries economy
You also proved his point though. The US military industrial complex is a bloated shitshow of late deliveries, broken promises and non-contributing, bureaucratic executives.
>>501228
that may be so, but Putin definitely does not embody the ideal of an altruistic despot
>>501352
You've not addressed the firm mate.
>>501359
That's a movie with Tom Cruise based on a John Grisham novel.
Did you by chance just graduate high-school?
>>501364
You don't have any background in political economy do you. "The firm" is a central analytical category of conservative business analysis.
Firms, or corporations, or "businesses" are command economies.
>>501356
Neither did many Czars (Alexander II aside, who commuted Dostoevsky's sentence from death to hard labor--ironically, Alexander II, a great reformer and lover of the poor, was assassinated by Russian Nihilists).
A monarch's point is not necessarily to govern better-sometimes they government better, sometimes they govern worse--a monarch's role is to elevate politics. The leader of a nation is her father. Look at American politics: everyone has to run gauntlet of disgrace and mudslinging before they can become ruler; by the time they do, they are not any kind of father in a traditional sense, they are the rather of the adolescent who roles his eyes and says his dad is an idiot. The point of a monarch is to elevate the dignity of the whole people. Some are awful, the old testament lists several awful kings of Israel. But it is better to have some sort of dignity.
>>501313
>Command economies
I don't see this point get brought up enough. The centrally-planned model that all of the gommie countries utilized was horribly flawed and inefficient.
>Lack of profit motive discouraged innovation
>Pre-set, non-monetary quotas were difficult to meet, often causing factories to fall short of the mark or produce a shoddy product
>Failure to meet quotas would cause a chain reaction of shortages to spread across all related industries (If the iron quota wasn't met, then neither would the steel quota or any of the things that are made with steel, like cars and tractor frames and Helicopters)
>Because change was discouraged, these problems were always happening, further harming the already poor Soviet economy
It's no wonder the USSR died from internal problems. Their understanding of economics was beyond abysmal.
>>501341
>the union movement was crushed by Maggie
Her demands were far from outrageous and hardly union crushing. The major integration steps were all post-Thatcher.
>>501383
>the point of a monarch is to elevate the dignity of the whole people. Some are awful, the old testament lists several awful kings of Israel. But it is better to have some sort of dignity.
>>501416
>The major integration steps were all post-Thatcher.
25 year rule.
>>501416
>Her demands were far from outrageous
That's a value judgement.
>>501416
>and hardly union crushing
Number of times the Union movement post-war brought the United Kingdom to a revolutionary situation prior to and inclusive of the miners' dispute: 4
Number of times after miners to 1990: 0.
Now obviously we're limited by the 25 year rule, but it is indicative, given that those situations were in the 1970s and 1980s.
>>501352
Yet it still manages to deliver actual weapons systems, unlike the Russians.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's read Red Storm Rising.
If in 1982 the USSR and allies launched a first strike with almost no warning and did absolutely everything right in the first two weeks, and had amazing strokes of luck when it came to the air and naval battle for the Atlantic, they could've theoretically cut off the US from resupplying the German front for a long enough time to make Western (FRG) Germany capitulate and the Soviets negotiate peace from a very strong position of power.
This is all assuming the Soviets successfully take Iceland as well and secure the arctic, and this is also assuming that it stays a strictly Nato-Warsaw Pact conflict with countries like India and Israel choosing to stay non-combatants for the short duration
>>501162
>implying the gambit ended in 1990
>implying they're not in it for the extended haul
>implying it's not all going according to plan
>>501426
>That's a value judgement.
Perhaps, but she raised relevant fiscal concerns. The EU is financed primarily by member states VAT, which was significantly higher in the UK compared to the other members, and taxes on non-EU products which the UK also imported in greater quantities, proportionally. There was a distortion in the UK's contribution and I don't think it was an entirely unfair point.
>>501426
Ah those unions, I thought you were talking about the EU. Well, the UK didn't join the EEC right away mostly because of the state monopoly on the coal industry and when it did, predictably, there was a huge hit. If anything, joining the EU helped Thatcher crush the labor unions.
>>501128
They didn't lose.
Communism is running rampant across the world today.
>>501128
Only in case the Earth currency is not dollar of USA and with support all Eurasia mainland and Heavens.
>>501460
>EU
>ah those unions
I see why we've been talking at cross purposes now. I can't see any way in which the European Union would produce a revolutionary situation in Western Europe which would cause the United States' position to collapse.
The trades unions were in a position where they either had to move forward, or accept that capital would destroy them. They chose "B"
>>501449
to be fair, Ukraine will be Russian clay soon and White Russia (Belarus) is basically a Russian puppet state under Lukashenko
>>501128
Should the question rather be: Could the Soviet Union have survived with the market style reforms of the PRC?
>>501886
You might want to read up on the tenuous relationship between the Soviet nomenklatura and the soviet proletariat, and why market reforms were impossible. No, that'd be too much fucking thinking.
>>501915
Pardon me for asking a question, fuckhead. I genuinely wanted to know if such a thing was possible, I didn't ask to be condescended to by some passive aggressive neckbeard.
>>501960
>if such a thing was possible
Ancient aliens.
Your opinion is as valuable to me as your arsehole: worthless and loose.
>>501978
Alright, good to know I'm conversing with someone who thinks regurgitating phrases from other anons will make him seem witty and cool.
Glad that /his/ is a place with such enlightening and thought-provoking discussion. Really a gem in the rough on 4chan.
i Believe without the atom bomb the ussr might have won in an armed conflict
exhausting the west economically was impossible since the free market is unstoppable in creating wealth
but army wise, the Red Army was more experiences, hardened and advanced than the western powers.
they had just fought the most brutal and destructive war in all human history between the two most ruthless and determined powers of the age.
A Soviet union invading Europe 1949 is the world's worst nightmare as they could have pushed all the way to France and then occupy Europe to steal all that Marshall plan monies
>>501986
Because, you know, being that fucking ignorant about the Soviet Union means that people are going to treat you kindly.
>>502085
>what is specialization
>what is division of labor
Not even the other guy, but you seem to be clueless about the idea of this board and possibly of academia too.
>>502184
Did Grimm's law apply to Irish??
How does Newton's second law apply to the orbits that electrons takke??????
There's an intolerable level of dumb, such as suggesting a process that happened in China in the 1970s and 1980s to a limited extent was possible in the Soviet Union.
Why isn't England's president elected? Is a similarly dumb question.
If the superpowers wiped each other out, would the surviving third world countries be majority communist or capitalist?
>>502357
Given the dislocation of the global economies and the lack of industrial stock, you'd probably see a reversion to tributary and feudal modes of production.
Do not bait the Reagan bait like a retard.
>>502369
>capitalism and communism will be condemned as the idologies that brought the world into ruin
>>501128
Communism and dictatorship is simply not a match for democratic and liberal market economies. The latter is simply superior. There were other strategic and other factors for sure, but this is the reason that lies at the heart of the issue. Prolonged conflicts are generally won by the stronger economies.
>>502208
Not once in this thread have you actually explained the reasoning behind your assertions, you've just made a bunch of comparisons and then insulted people like we're supposed to treat your word as fact.
This can be forgiven as you've clearly never been in an academic environment past high school.
>>502950
What about communism and democracy? Imagine the command economy would have had popular participation, resulting in less war-wasting resources. The Media would still have to be free though.
Or is the idea just pure nonsense (/pol/ doesn't need to respond)
>>501128
>implying its over
>>501162
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKzesTq0Wo
By focusing on doing better within its borders (specially diversifying the economy) instead of squandering money spreading gommunism everywhere, except maybe in Cuba. They had the advantage of being totalitarian, so anything the party decided would have gotten done without a reprive and didn't exactly care about collateral damage.
Also sino-soviet split.
Not collapsing worked well for America.
