What if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War?

[The Wolf]

Serious and non-serious answers are ok.

 

[DPRKcel]

there wouldn't be gays and transgenders

 

[The Wolf]

Maybe a series of events could have meant some of us never existed in the first place.

 

[lnceI]

I dont know

 

[currycell900]

Fidel castro would become US president

 

[Hail The Bloatlord]

We'd live in space already


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBmKLYoggkA&list=PLB1jNHSNHAFYiTj1D3jGZMm9zkztdPQz7

 

[Excalibur]

Depends on what you mean by "won"

 

[The Wolf]

Depends on what you mean by "won"

if the Soviet Union had 1. been much stronger politically and in other areas, and the US making wrong decisions in addition to that; and 2. if the Soviet Union hadn't dissolved at all.

 

[The Wolf]

Fidel castro would become US president

 

[Excalibur]

if the Soviet Union had 1. been much stronger politically and in other areas, and the US making wrong decisions in addition to that; and 2. if the Soviet Union hadn't dissolved at all.

That's still pretty vague. Does the Warsaw Pact expand across all of Europe or does it maintain the status quo?

 

[Sonicfancel]

Same as our timeline.

 

[The Wolf]

That's still pretty vague. Does the Warsaw Pact expand across all of Europe or does it maintain the status quo?

let's say it expanded into central Europe including Western Germany and the Balkans but not beyond that.

Also the US never discovered the Soviet missiles in Cuba (this might of course have led to a "separate" outcome than the hypothetical I just mentioned).

 

[NonNTFailure]

There would be 0 feminism in the modern day

 

[Excalibur]

There would be 0 feminism in the modern day

The Soviet Union was feminist and arguably the first feminist state in history

 

[NonNTFailure]

The Soviet Union was feminist and arguably the first feminist state in history

Oh yeah I forgot there were JEWS in the Soviet Union..

 

[The Wolf]

Same as our timeline.

Many historians agree that it likely wouldn't have been the same, if the US didn't become the sole superpower in the 90s and beyond.

 

[Excalibur]

let's say it expanded into central Europe including Western Germany and the Balkans but not beyond that.

In that case, the US would have had to revert to isolationism, and NATO would have been dissolved. With the Soviet Union as the world's only superpower, I can imagine that it would transition to market socialism with a computerized economy.

 

[LeFrenchCel]

We would be talking russian instead of english probably

 

[PolarIce20]

Catholicism would be banned and the Church would face constant persecution

 

[Bazooka]

There wouldn't have being this flood of filth migrating masses that plagues the planet at the moment.

 

[VλREN]

Uh would I get laid??

 

[lifeisfucked215]

Probably wouldn't be so good. We wouldn't be typing on here or who knows if we would even have smartphones. They're all products of capitalism. USA won by having more $$$$

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Serious and non-serious answers are ok.

This would not have happened, because by the end of the 1960s, no one in the Soviet leadership believed in communism after Khrushchev's ousting. The Soviet elite had already become morally corrupt and surrounded themselves with luxury. In fact, the USSR was destroyed not by the West but by the KGB from within, as the ruling elite wanted to live in absolute luxury without having to hide it. That's why the USSR collapsed on its own, because the Soviet elite wanted it to die.
Yesterday's KGB officers and high party communists have become capitalists and oligarchs.

 

[pixy.]

Probably not much. Rest of mainland Europe would turn “communist” but in reality they would just be state capitalist(think modern china) as the rest of the Warsaw pact countries would slowly liberalize. Us and Britain would just become isolationist and have less power on the global stage but would never reach the economic lows of 90s Russia. Similar wars would be fought in the Middle East but with Soviet troops fighting endless wars rather than US ones. China may reunite with Taiwan but that’s a big stretch and I can’t imagine the us would give up its pacific holdings even in the worst case. China would be far more focused on the USSR and would never think of a war with the USA and risk getting blindsided by the former.

 

[Blackpill Monk]

there wouldn't be gays and transgenders

 

[Blackpill Monk]

There would be 0 feminism in the modern day

 

[Blackpill Monk]

There wouldn't have being this flood of filth migrating masses that plagues the planet at the moment.

 

[Blackpill Monk]

This would not have happened, because by the end of the 1960s, no one in the Soviet leadership believed in communism after Khrushchev's ousting. The Soviet elite had already become morally corrupt and surrounded themselves with luxury. In fact, the USSR was destroyed not by the West but by the KGB from within, as the ruling elite wanted to live in absolute luxury without having to hide it. That's why the USSR collapsed on its own, because the Soviet elite wanted it to die.
Yesterday's KGB officers and high party communists have become capitalists and oligarchs.

 

[Leon98]

That would be impossible basically, Especially for the US, You’d probably see Western Europe fall to communism but the US would just Isolate itself and use its nuclear deterrence

 

[Tumor]

Serious and non-serious answers are ok.

I fucking wish, better than this capitalist hell hole I am living in

 

[Hoor Al-Ayn]

The loss of the USSR was an internal ideological defeat, the party bureaucracy had been boiling the frog for a long time culminating in the capitalist restoration of 1991. The only path to victory for them is if they had some way to resolve the issue of revisionists and opportunists within the party. Hoxha and Mao had their own answers to this, but they also lost in the end and the capitalist restoration occurred in their respective countries.

If the socialists did win, it would be fairly straightforward; socialism would become the predominant mode of production.

 

[Shark]

We would be talking russian instead of english

 

[slavcel11]

It won the cold war, communism and its derivatives took over the world. We see the world through the leftist lens.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

The loss of the USSR was an internal ideological defeat, the party bureaucracy had been boiling the frog for a long time culminating in the capitalist restoration of 1991. The only path to victory for them is if they had some way to resolve the issue of revisionists and opportunists within the party. Hoxha and Mao had their own answers to this, but they also lost in the end and the capitalist restoration occurred in their respective countries.

If the socialists did win, it would be fairly straightforward; socialism would become the predominant mode of production.

To be fair, Stalin was not a pure communist in the traditional sense of the word. Under Stalin, there was a huge economic disparity in the USSR. Stalin abolished Lenin's measures, such as the party maximum (where a leader could not receive a salary that was more than one and a half times that of their average worker). Under Stalin, most of the population lived in barracks and dugouts. Meanwhile, the elite lived in Stalin's high-rise buildings. Higher education was paid under Stalin, and peasants were turned into serfs. Khrushchev made education free for everyone, he moved half the country into new modern houses with electricity, sewage, and water. He created a pension system in the USSR, and he also released millions of people from prisons and gulags and restored their good names. He also eliminated the influence of the NKVD/MGB and destroyed Beria and his henchmen. I am an anti-communist, but Khrushchev was probably the least evil of the Soviet leaders. The only reason Khrushchev was overthrown was because he didn't allow the elite to steal and engage in corruption.

 

[outerdarkness]

At this point, they lost the Cold War in the same way that the Confederates lost the civil war. They lost the first battle and had to lay dormant for a few decades. Then when the other side became complacent they came back and started wining.

 

[Hoor Al-Ayn]

To be fair, Stalin was not a pure communist in the traditional sense of the word.

true; the restoration emerged in germ form during his administration

Stalin abolished Lenin's measures, such as the party maximum (where a leader could not receive a salary that was more than one and a half times that of their average worker).

This essentially laid the conditions that would kill the socialist project. The fact that party leaders lived in Stalinkas more spacious than the masses was also not great. idk about the other high ranking members of the party, but Stalin himself had a salary of 10 thousand rubles before tax in 1953, which is not crazy but still, that would create a strata of society that would be problematic down the line; eventually they would become wannabe bourgeoisie who wanted everything the west had and then finally a real bourgeoisie after 1991.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

true; the restoration emerged in germ form during his administration

This essentially laid the conditions that would kill the socialist project. The fact that party leaders lived in Stalinkas more spacious than the masses was also not great. idk about the other high ranking members of the party, but Stalin himself had a salary of 10 thousand rubles before tax in 1953, which is not crazy but still, that would create a strata of society that would be problematic down the line; eventually they would become wannabe bourgeoisie who wanted everything the west had and then finally a real bourgeoisie after 1991.

I just meant that Khrushchev increased the quality of life for the Soviet population several times over. Any education beyond 8th grade school cost money in Stalin rule. Under Khrushchev, anyone could get a university degree for free, as well as the opportunity to own a private apartment in a modern building after 20 years of working in the same place. Stalin's reign was the worst time for living in the USSR, with poverty, hunger, and fear.

 

[Fallen-Angel]

I just meant that Khrushchev increased the quality of life for the Soviet population several times over. Any education beyond 8th grade school cost money in Stalin rule. Under Khrushchev, anyone could get a university degree for free, as well as the opportunity to own a private apartment in a modern building after 20 years of working in the same place. Stalin's reign was the worst time for living in the USSR, with poverty, hunger, and fear.

Still, there're a lot of morons who jerk off thinking about Stalin (I don't mean this forum, he isn't popular here) which is hilarious.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

true; the restoration emerged in germ form during his administration

This essentially laid the conditions that would kill the socialist project. The fact that party leaders lived in Stalinkas more spacious than the masses was also not great. idk about the other high ranking members of the party, but Stalin himself had a salary of 10 thousand rubles before tax in 1953, which is not crazy but still, that would create a strata of society that would be problematic down the line; eventually they would become wannabe bourgeoisie who wanted everything the west had and then finally a real bourgeoisie after 1991.

Stalin also had nothing to do with the working class; he was literally a failed priest. At least Khrushchev was a miner and a real worker.

 

[Fallen-Angel]

Probably not much. Rest of mainland Europe would turn “communist” but in reality they would just be state capitalist(think modern china) as the rest of the Warsaw pact countries would slowly liberalize. Us and Britain would just become isolationist and have less power on the global stage but would never reach the economic lows of 90s Russia. Similar wars would be fought in the Middle East but with Soviet troops fighting endless wars rather than US ones. China may reunite with Taiwan but that’s a big stretch and I can’t imagine the us would give up its pacific holdings even in the worst case. China would be far more focused on the USSR and would never think of a war with the USA and risk getting blindsided by the former.

This post sounds underrated.

 

[Hoor Al-Ayn]

I just meant that Khrushchev increased the quality of life for the Soviet population several times over. Any education beyond 8th grade school cost money in Stalin rule. Under Khrushchev, anyone could get a university degree for free, as well as the opportunity to own a private apartment in a modern building after 20 years of working in the same place. Stalin's reign was the worst time for living in the USSR, with poverty, hunger, and fear.

i get your point

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Still, there're a lot of morons who jerk off thinking about Stalin (I don't mean this forum, he isn't popular here) which is hilarious.

The Russian people love tyrants and have a certain masochistic attitude towards those rulers who have brutally oppressed them and made their lives a living hell. Stalin is the man who reinstated serfdom in 1930, even though it had been abolished by the tsars in 1865. The peasants became slaves who were forcibly attached to their collective farms, unable to leave until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when they were finally given passports and the freedom to travel wherever they wished.

 

[Fallen-Angel]

The Russian people love tyrants and have a certain masochistic attitude towards those rulers who have brutally oppressed them and made their lives a living hell. Stalin is the man who reinstated serfdom in 1930, even though it had been abolished by the tsars in 1865. The peasants became slaves who were forcibly attached to their collective farms, unable to leave until the late 1960s and early 1970s, when they were finally given passports and the freedom to travel wherever they wished.

Do you think it's some kind of a generational trauma?

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Do you think it's some kind of a generational trauma?

I think it's true, it's a generational trauma. Hundreds of years of serfdom (considered slavery from 1649 to 1861), followed by World War I, the Civil War, the Red Terror, collectivization, the Stalinist Terror of 1937-1938, and World War II. From 1953 to 1979, there was relative calm, followed by the war in Afghanistan, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rapid transition from communism to capitalism. Currently, we are witnessing the rise of Putin's dictatorship and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

 

[jllwyjm]

Communism is when no twink boyfriend and labubu

 

[Fallen-Angel]

I think it's true, it's a generational trauma. Hundreds of years of serfdom (considered slavery from 1649 to 1861), followed by World War I, the Civil War, the Red Terror, collectivization, the Stalinist Terror of 1937-1938, and World War II. From 1953 to 1979, there was relative calm, followed by the war in Afghanistan, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rapid transition from communism to capitalism. Currently, we are witnessing the rise of Putin's dictatorship and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

How strong is the support for war, would you say?

Also, I think it would take more than 100 years for Russians to become less authoritarian, probably.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

How strong is the support for war, would you say?

Also, I think it would take more than 100 years for Russians to become less authoritarian, probably.

About 70% is the approximate base of support for the war. But if Putin stops the war tomorrow, they'll put up with it, I don't know, the Russian population is not politically active.