this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
174 points (94.8% liked)
Memes
56978 readers
994 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not saying this isn't true, but there is something that I have often wondered with this reasoning.
There have been some quite powerful socialist states. Sure, fledgeling socialist states were sabotaged by the US and it's allies. But they were also propped up by the USSR and it's allies.
So, if external sabotage explains the failure of socialist states, why wasn't support from powerful socialist allies enough to offset it? And why didn't comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates?
There is plenty of research comparing socialist and capitalist development actually.
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possible:
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
Romania, the inustrialization of an agrarian economy under socialist planning
Support was able to offset it for a while. The USSR was also a fundamental ally to the US and its allies. That period of time legitimized and stabilized their existence so that the Cold War started on a semblance of parity and balance.
The USSR pushed the world towards industrialization, technology development and the Space Race, but it took nearly 50 years of seige to bring the USSR to dissolution.
The interference simply wasn't comparable. But more importantly the USSR came out of World War 1. The Imperialist capitalist states were already failing and famously there became some fascist states hell bent on destroying all marxism and bolshevism.
While socialist states have been the most rapidly improving and developing countries in history, they did not start this race off on the same foot as the developed imperialist powers like the US and western Europe. China was among the poorest countries on the planet when it had its revolution, Russia was referred to as the "sick old man of Europe" at the time of its revolution. While the great strides made by socialist states were and are incredible, they still did not reach the sheer levels of material wealth imperialist countries enjoy from exploiting the global south.
Socialism is undeniably a better socioeconomic system. Comparing them by the data, this is uncontestable. The arguments against socialism rely entirely on false equivalence and poor comparistics, essentially playing metaphysical tricks, or through atrocity propaganda either magnifying real events or distorting them.
Tldr; socialism is the best internal system, when you dont have a neighbor you're willing to steal resources from to tip the scales
Pretty much!
Because socialist countries didn't have the same networks, hegemony or development at the start, the USSR didn't have infinite money, technology or resources to give anywhere
I think they were weaker, had lesser resources.
Many socialist states were former colonies or under capitalist regimes aligned with the colonial capitalist regimes, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, Cuba. They bad to build themselves up, under the capitalist attempts at sabotage. So unlikely they had enough resources to do anything back at hat scale.
USSR was indeed a powerful ally for them, but seems to have lesser resources compared to the Western empires with all their centuries of colonial expanse and the wealth accumulated.
The Sino-Soviet split also probably reduced united strength
The capitalist colonial regimes in many places fell tho. The South African apartheid regime backed by the USAmerican capitalist bloc, fell. Many colonies got free.
So, they were able to tackle colonialism, but likely did not have more resources for the level of influence that the colonial/capitalist bloc had
Western financialization permitted high consumption and concentration of wealth in an establishment capable of financing war/military... until its current later stage.
Thank you for this. When I think of the real circumstances on the ground that these states faced, how little they had to do with, and how constricted their ability to make any real changes, I'm really amazed that they had any success at all, and... I kind of see why vassal states are afraid to make a break for it. It's like being tethered with a slipknot around the neck. The only solution is sever the tether, risk breaking your neck, or be strangled slowly with any movement made, or have the captor tighten or loosen the noose to whatever degree and how slowly or quickly as dictated by their caprices.
Part of it is the initial conditions of states experiencing socialist revolutions, as those generally don't happen when things are going well, and fighting during the revolution itself will also destroy some infrastructure, so even the more powerful of those states start on the back foot. In addition, during World War 2 both China and the USSR saw major invasions by the axis power causing even more damage to them, while the mainland of the US did not see any fighting which allowed them to maintain their productive capacity and infrastructure. Due to these factors, the western powers did have more resources to inflict and resist sabotage. That is not to say that it was necessarily the only reason, but it was certainly a significant factor.
Do we have data on the number of states that failed?
Didn't Capitalist states of Germany and Italy fail and fall into Nazism and Fascism so that a socialist revolution did not happen?
The South African apartheid regime(supported by the USAmerican regime) fell.
onies.
The smaller socialist states were exploited colonies, like Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Korea etc. They were exploited, technologically backward and under threat from the capitalist bloc. Even then they advanced decently. Cuba, even with all the sanctions has a life expectancy near that of the USAmerican regime.
USSR was indeed a powerful ally for them. We see how many Socialist states fell or faced difficulty after USSR dissolved.
Cuba's, Korea's conditions n all were more difficult after they lost a major partner and the intensity of capitalist blockade and sanctions is felt more.
It was the same USSR that lost the most number of lives against the fight against Nazis too.
I think the Sino-Soviet split and them being newer states with lesser resources or being former colonies caused resource constraints vs The capitalist-imperialist bloc that had colonies and more resources
Why is socialism not "good enough?" That seems more like a moral framing. What is the problem with socialism?
As for a socialist state being a contradiction in terms, this is false. Socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism, and as such has elements of both. The state exists until all production and distribution has been collectivized, and begins to die out as all of society becomes classless in accordance.
Is there a reason why you both chose to respond and refused to answer? Why not just walk away if you can't or don't want to answer, no need to tack on a meaningless jab.
support tends to wane when it leads to everyone everyone around you getting killed.
as for your last paragraph... i feel like there's an obvious answer there, but the onus is probably still on you the back up those assertions.