What if: USSR won cold war, your life.

[Servica]

Assuming I was even born...
I would have 'disappeared' long ago because I support democracy.

If you were born in this hypothetical world how do you think you would become acquainted with democracy? In this world you would be taught what the government thought you should learn; the rest would be very hard to acquire.

Well, I came to support amoral tendencies despite living in a very conservative society and identify myself as an anarchist. I really don't see how it's hard to imagine a particular form of mob rule.

[The Transcaucasian Democratic Republic]

If you were born in this hypothetical world how do you think you would become acquainted with democracy? In this world you would be taught what the government thought you should learn; the rest would be very hard to acquire.

Well, I came to support amoral tendencies despite living in a very conservative society and identify myself as an anarchist. I really don't see how it's hard to imagine a particular form of mob rule.

That's probably because you had access to the internet; in this scenario the internet would probably not exist and if it did it would be censored and monitored by the state.

[New DeCapito]

Well, I came to support amoral tendencies despite living in a very conservative society and identify myself as an anarchist. I really don't see how it's hard to imagine a particular form of mob rule.

That's probably because you had access to the internet; in this scenario the internet would probably not exist and if it did it would be censored and monitored by the state.

Remember Winston Smith, 1984? He lived in a world with no access to anything, and he opposed it.

[Servica]

Well, I came to support amoral tendencies despite living in a very conservative society and identify myself as an anarchist. I really don't see how it's hard to imagine a particular form of mob rule.

That's probably because you had access to the internet; in this scenario the internet would probably not exist and if it did it would be censored and monitored by the state.

Emma Goldman was from Russia, and Peter Kropotkin pretty much abandoned his princedom. How? because they were able to reason. That goes to show that reason is a natural aspect of human intelligence.

[Jinwoy]

That's probably because you had access to the internet; in this scenario the internet would probably not exist and if it did it would be censored and monitored by the state.

Emma Goldman was from Russia, and Peter Kropotkin pretty much abandoned his princedom. How? because they were able to reason. That goes to show that reason is a natural aspect of human intelligence.

We can't all be pragmatic like the Chinese Communist Party

[Constantinopolis]

Assuming I was even born...
I would have 'disappeared' long ago because I support democracy.

If you were born in this hypothetical world how do you think you would become acquainted with democracy? In this world you would be taught what the government thought you should learn; the rest would be very hard to acquire.

Note: The Soviet Union and countries following the Soviet model always claimed that they were democracies.

Thus, in a world in which the USSR won the Cold War, the word "democracy" may come to be (wrongly) used as the name of the Soviet system, just like in our world many people (wrongly) use the word "communism" to describe that system.

If you supported true democracy in a world in which the USSR won the Cold War, and tried to explain to people that true democracy is not the same thing as the "democracy" that the government supports, they'd probably accuse you of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Ripoll]

Aiding the remaining rational capitalistic nations as would anyone with a brain.

That being said the USSR has so many failed policies and could have never lasted out. They would have collapsed internally, Reagan knew we could outspend the USSR and that's what he did. Capitalism wins socialistic dictatorships lose.

[Jinwoy]

Reagan knew we could outspend the USSR and that's what he did.

Yes, I bet it was well worth the crippling debt and imminent dethroning of the US as a creditor and transformation into the world's largest, most failed debtor.

Capitalism wins socialistic dictatorships lose.

Except neither side was what it said to be.
I don't know who won that war of Smoke and Mirrors - I'll give that credit to the Soviet Union, since it has a large nostalgic following (let's, sadly, remind ourselves that Ostalgie is a thing)

[Len Hyet]

This is just an alternative timeline idea, it's just some fun what if the USSR won the cold war? In the POD, Reagan's policies hinder the USA and leads to an economic collapse of the US. California, Hawaii, the CSA and Texas succeed from the US, North Korea unites with South Korea, East Germany unites with West Germany. The only capitalist bastions left in the world is in Great Britain, Afghanistan, India, Japan and Ireland. Japan and Great Britain have severe embargoes put against them.

What would your life be like in post cold war if USSR won?
I would already graduated from University and I would be a secondary school teacher, teaching kids Marxist-Leninism.

This is a ridiculous and eminently stupid idea that is based on what can only be assumed to be incomplete understanding of how the Cold War ended. Reagan's policies really didn't begin to effect the United States until 1986 with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This is important, and I'll explain why below. But for now, let us assume for the sake of argument that his tax breaks and government spending reductions somehow caused total economic collapse of the United States (with none of the various mechanisms for avoiding this kicking in? We did learn from the Great Depression you know). I mean, the thought that it somehow could is a ridiculous fallacy, but sure. Why not. Lets go with that.

So somehow, the US's economy collapses. Cool. Guess what! Nobody is going to fucking secede. "BUT HOW CAN YOU KNOW THAT? MUH HERITAGE! MUH CONFEDERACY!" Well mostly because during the Great Depression, the most horrific economic collapse in history (and much closer timewise to the ideals of the Confederacy), nobody seceded from the US of A. Not a single state.

Now what happens to the world economy if the US collapses? Well, in the 1920s it sent the entire world into an economic slump. The US financial crash had ripple effects that caused recessions and depressions all over the world. In the 1980s, the same thing would happen. Most of the world would go into an economic depression, including the Soviet Union. Which would cause the Soviet Union to utterly collapse. In its entirety. The Soviet Union was doomed from the start, the only question was of how long it would take to collapse. By the 1980s the USSR was in its death throes. By the mid 80s (when the economic collapse of the USA would begin in your scenario) it was already beginning to fracture. A total economic collapse of the US (no matter how stupidly improbable that is) would do one of two things. Firstly, and most likely, it would cause total economic failure of the Soviet system as the global economy goes into a depression the likes of which has never been seen. Secondly, and least likely, it postpones the collapse of the Soviet Union by a few years due to propaganda value. Honestly that second scenario is the least likely thing to happen. Its more likely that Mongolia invades the collapsing USSR, backed by Ghana, with an alliance composed of the Mujaheddin and Guatemala, and the tacit support of Finland. That's how unlikely even postponing the collapse of the USSR was.

So what are you doing?

Probably starving. I dunno, maybe the global economy has made a partial recovery by now? Possibly. Reaching any more than a few years beyond a historical what-if is dangerous because the ripple effects can oftentimes be totally unforeseen.

[Constantinopolis]

Reagan knew we could outspend the USSR and that's what he did.

Reagan gambled that the Soviets wouldn't simply say, "fuck it, why exactly do we need a disproportionately huge military for a world war that will never happen and tons of bombs we'll never use, anyway?"

There was no reason why the USSR had to try to outspend the US, other than prestige. If they had cared less about their prestige, Reagan's tactic wouldn't have worked.

Reagan's tactic was basically the equivalent of pointing at your enemy and saying "ha ha, my dick is bigger than yours" in the hope that they will ruin themselves spending money on penis-enlargement procedures. It only works if the enemy is dumb enough to fall for it.

[Len Hyet]

Reagan knew we could outspend the USSR and that's what he did.

Reagan gambled that the Soviets wouldn't simply say, "fuck it, why exactly do we need a disproportionately huge military for a world war that will never happen and tons of bombs we'll never use, anyway?"

There was no reason why the USSR had to try to outspend the US, other than prestige. If they had cared less about their prestige, Reagan's tactic wouldn't have worked.

Reagan's tactic was basically the equivalent of pointing at your enemy and saying "ha ha, my dick is bigger than yours" in the hope that they will ruin themselves spending money on penis-enlargement procedures. It only works if the enemy is dumb enough to fall for it.

Not really. Like at all. In any way. The USSR had several things they absolutely HAD to put forward to the rest of the world, otherwise they would be admitting communism was a total failure. The USSR absolutely HAD to have just as large (or larger) of a military than the largest capitalist economy, the United States. They absolutely HAD to, because they had committed themselves to fighting an economic war with the USA, and surrender meant the surrender of communism to capitalism, which was something that ideologically they could never tolerate.

[Jinwoy]

The USSR had several things they absolutely HAD to put forward to the rest of the world, otherwise they would be admitting communism was a total failure.

wat

[Constantinopolis]

The Soviet Union was doomed from the start, the only question was of how long it would take to collapse.

Got any argument to back this up?

By the 1980s the USSR was in its death throes.

No, by the 1980s the USSR was stagnating. That's not "being in its death throes."

For comparison, the Japanese economy has been stagnating since the 1990s, and Japan isn't about to collapse or abandon capitalism. Economic stagnation does not necessarily lead to collapse. It might, but it doesn't have to. With a different leadership, the USSR could have survived.

Most of the world would go into an economic depression, including the Soviet Union.

Why? The Soviet Union didn't go into economic depression in the 1930s.

It is true that the Soviets had more trade with the capitalist world in the 1980s compared to the 1930s, but they were still largely self-sufficient. Their trade with the capitalist world was tiny compared to, for example, Russia's foreign trade today.

[Len Hyet]

The USSR had several things they absolutely HAD to put forward to the rest of the world, otherwise they would be admitting communism was a total failure.

wat

The USSR engaged in economic warfare with the United States. Their entire ideology revolved around a war between communism and capitalism. Their chosen comparison marker was their military. The USSR declared that they could have just as large (or larger) of an army than the United States. Thus, all the United States had to do was outspend the Soviets. Force them to keep spending money they don't have on systems they don't need and eventually they'll collapse.

[Ifreann]

I imagine I'd be posting in a thread about what my life would be like if the US had won the Cold War.

[Constantinopolis]

Reagan gambled that the Soviets wouldn't simply say, "fuck it, why exactly do we need a disproportionately huge military for a world war that will never happen and tons of bombs we'll never use, anyway?"

There was no reason why the USSR had to try to outspend the US, other than prestige. If they had cared less about their prestige, Reagan's tactic wouldn't have worked.

Reagan's tactic was basically the equivalent of pointing at your enemy and saying "ha ha, my dick is bigger than yours" in the hope that they will ruin themselves spending money on penis-enlargement procedures. It only works if the enemy is dumb enough to fall for it.

Not really. Like at all. In any way. The USSR had several things they absolutely HAD to put forward to the rest of the world, otherwise they would be admitting communism was a total failure. The USSR absolutely HAD to have just as large (or larger) of a military than the largest capitalist economy, the United States. They absolutely HAD to, because they had committed themselves to fighting an economic war with the USA, and surrender meant the surrender of communism to capitalism, which was something that ideologically they could never tolerate.

Not having a military as large as that of the USA = "admitting communism was a total failure"? Wut?

Hell, if they diverted resources away from the military and into improving people's living standards, that would have probably made the public image of communism better, not worse.

[Lingria]

I would be living In a bunker speaking Russian-English wishing that my Ak-47 wouldn't jam

[Constantinopolis]

The USSR engaged in economic warfare with the United States. Their entire ideology revolved around a war between communism and capitalism. Their chosen comparison marker was their military. The USSR declared that they could have just as large (or larger) of an army than the United States.

No, they declared no such thing. There was no "chosen comparison marker". They were just doing whatever they thought would increase their international prestige, and having a large military is only one of several ways to gain prestige.

At the same time they were also investing heavily in space exploration and economic aid to friendly Third World countries, among other things.

The Cold War was primarily a propaganda war. The point was to look good. If one method of "looking good" is too expensive, try a different one.

[Jinwoy]

It is true that the Soviets had more trade with the capitalist world in the 1980s compared to the 1930s, but they were still largely self-sufficient. Their trade with the capitalist world was tiny compared to, for example, Russia's foreign trade today.

I think it's also interesting to note here that the USSR, rarely if ever, traded using currency. Correct me if I'm wrong, and there is a high probability that I am, that most of the USSR's trade was trading goods for other goods, rather than selling goods or buying goods using cold hard cash.

It was more or less an accidental by-product of having an economy that isn't really trying to compete. The need for money simply didn't exist, because it wasn't money or credit that fuelled the Soviet Economy. And the Soviet Economy was huge - having an economy that huge, that isn't a creditor or debtor (eg: no bank sector entirely) is, literally, as amazing it is (or, was) improbable.

[Len Hyet]

The Soviet Union was doomed from the start, the only question was of how long it would take to collapse.

Got any argument to back this up?

Sure, here's a piece from the NY Times. Tada. And here is an economist saying much the same thing.

By the 1980s the USSR was in its death throes.

No, by the 1980s the USSR was stagnating. That's not "being in its death throes."

For comparison, the Japanese economy has been stagnating since the 1990s, and Japan isn't about to collapse or abandon capitalism. Economic stagnation does not necessarily lead to collapse. It might, but it doesn't have to. With a different leadership, the USSR could have survived.

You mean without the implementation of glastnost and perestroika specifically? Okay, then the USSR's economy continues to slowly decay, and eventually collapses entirely. The difference between the USSR and Japan is that Japan has the backing of major world powers, which keep them invested in a democracy. The USSR had no such backing, and frankly no country both able and willing to prop up their economy.

Most of the world would go into an economic depression, including the Soviet Union.

Why? The Soviet Union didn't go into economic depression in the 1930s.

It certainly had an economic slump. "However, information about the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 was suppressed by the Soviet authorities until perestroika. In 1933 workers' real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level.[31] Common and political prisoners in labor camps were forced to do unpaid labor, and communists and Komsomol members were frequently "mobilized" for various construction projects." Tada.

It is true that the Soviets had more trade with the capitalist world in the 1980s compared to the 1930s, but they were still largely self-sufficient. Their trade with the capitalist world was tiny compared to, for example, Russia's foreign trade today.

But it was large enough to have an effect. And that effect, coupled with a stagnating economy, and the gradual falling apart of the USSR, would have been enough to end it. Maybe not immediately, but over the course of a few months or a few years? Absolutely.

[Constantinopolis]

Got any argument to back this up?

Sure, here's a piece from the NY Times. Tada. And here is an economist saying much the same thing.

And here is a book by a pair of economists saying the precise opposite (very good book, by the way, I strongly recommend it). And a historian saying that there was nothing inevitable about the Soviet collapse. And since you posted a silly NYT article, here's another non-scholarly article by a professor to counter it: "Five Ways the Soviet Union Could Have Won the Cold War"

All claims that the Soviet system was doomed from the start - including the ones in the links you posted - rest on the argument that the philosophical theories of Karl Marx had flaws.

This is akin to pointing out flaws in Adam Smith's theory and saying that, because of these flaws, capitalism is doomed to collapse. It's nonsense. The survival of an economic system does not depend on the strength of the theories advanced by its intellectual supporters. If all capitalist economists had been complete and total idiots, that wouldn't make capitalism any more or less likely to collapse. Reality is not based on theory. Theory seeks to explain reality. Gravity won't stop working if our theories of physics are wrong, and likewise the economy won't stop working if our theories of economics are wrong.

And besides, the Soviet system had almost nothing to do with Marx's theories anyway, because Marx's theories are mainly a criticism of capitalism. He says very little about socialism or communism. Anyone trying to create a socialist society - as the founders of the USSR tried to do - must come up with all sorts of laws and institutions that Marx said nothing about.

No, by the 1980s the USSR was stagnating. That's not "being in its death throes."
For comparison, the Japanese economy has been stagnating since the 1990s, and Japan isn't about to collapse or abandon capitalism. Economic stagnation does not necessarily lead to collapse. It might, but it doesn't have to. With a different leadership, the USSR could have survived.

You mean without the implementation of glastnost and perestroika specifically? Okay, then the USSR's economy continues to slowly decay, and eventually collapses entirely.

But it wasn't decaying before glasnost and perestroika. It was still growing, although slowly. That's what "stagnation" means. And that's what Japan has been doing for some two decades now.

The difference between the USSR and Japan is that Japan has the backing of major world powers, which keep them invested in a democracy. The USSR had no such backing, and frankly no country both able and willing to prop up their economy.

Japan's economy isn't being propped up by anyone. The reason it's not collapsing is simply because stagnation and collapse are two different things, and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

By the way, since the Great Recession of 2008-2009, almost the entire advanced capitalist world has been experiencing very low growth rates - i.e. stagnation. Should we expect the collapse of global capitalism any time soon?

Why? The Soviet Union didn't go into economic depression in the 1930s.

It certainly had an economic slump. "However, information about the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 was suppressed by the Soviet authorities until perestroika. In 1933 workers' real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level.[31] Common and political prisoners in labor camps were forced to do unpaid labor, and communists and Komsomol members were frequently "mobilized" for various construction projects." Tada.

Except that wasn't an economic slump, it was a fall in wages, intentionally caused by Stalin's government in order to reduce consumption. Why did they need to reduce consumption? So they could divert more resources into building up their heavy industry instead, which is precisely what Stalin did.

An economic slump is a fall in total economic output. The output of the Soviet Union did not decline in the 1930s - on the contrary, it skyrocketed. The USSR in the 1930s was a giant construction site - with badly paid workers, to be sure, but the point is that the economy was rapidly expanding.

It is true that the Soviets had more trade with the capitalist world in the 1980s compared to the 1930s, but they were still largely self-sufficient. Their trade with the capitalist world was tiny compared to, for example, Russia's foreign trade today.

But it was large enough to have an effect. And that effect, coupled with a stagnating economy, and the gradual falling apart of the USSR, would have been enough to end it. Maybe not immediately, but over the course of a few months or a few years? Absolutely.

Then why didn't the USSR collapse during the oil crises of the 1970s, which had a similar effect on its foreign trade?

[Valica]

>be me
>be 17m
>have thick, manly russian accent
>get up early morning
>go into far corner of concrete living cube
>open fridge
>mfw only government cheese and meat squares
>sigh and close fridge
>get glass of water from sink
>is brown
>gross.webm
>put on state-issue grey pants and grey sweater
>leave for job at state-run grocery store
>mfw we only sell government cheese and meat squares
>work for 11 hours
>receive paycheck from boss
>$125.00
>mfw I get paid every three weeks
>go back to concrete living cube
>go to sleep before mandatory power outage at 9pm
>such is life in united soviet states of america

[Infected Mushroom]

This is just an alternative timeline idea, it's just some fun what if the USSR won the cold war? In the POD, Reagan's policies hinder the USA and leads to an economic collapse of the US. California, Hawaii, the CSA and Texas succeed from the US, North Korea unites with South Korea, East Germany unites with West Germany. The only capitalist bastions left in the world is in Great Britain, Afghanistan, India, Japan and Ireland. Japan and Great Britain have severe embargoes put against them.

What would your life be like in post cold war if USSR won?
I would already graduated from University and I would be a secondary school teacher, teaching kids Marxist-Leninism.

I would have a job in the Communist government bureaucracy, somewhere in the middle of the ladder, where I will remain comfortably for the rest of my life.

[Montoso]

This is just an alternative timeline idea, it's just some fun what if the USSR won the cold war? In the POD, Reagan's policies hinder the USA and leads to an economic collapse of the US. California, Hawaii, the CSA and Texas succeed from the US, North Korea unites with South Korea, East Germany unites with West Germany. The only capitalist bastions left in the world is in Great Britain, Afghanistan, India, Japan and Ireland. Japan and Great Britain have severe embargoes put against them.

What would your life be like in post cold war if USSR won?
I would already graduated from University and I would be a secondary school teacher, teaching kids Marxist-Leninism.

I would have a job in the Communist government bureaucracy, somewhere in the middle of the ladder, where I will remain comfortably for the rest of my life.

But what if they decided to have a purge. What then.

[The Serbian Empire]

I'd probably be claiming that the Commies aren't practicing real Communism until the final holdouts of capitalism are no longer capitalist.