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?

[–] elixir_fan@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] 1Malayali@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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

[–] a_random_fox@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] 1Malayali@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

And why didn't comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates?

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

[–] lime@feddit.nu 0 points 3 hours ago

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.