(If this is in the wrong thread, I apologize, the butterflies that I'm asking about here might be less than 20 years ago, till at least the GFC, so if this more suited for Political Chat or something, is it okay if the mods can move it please? Thanks. Sorry.)
If you just want to get to my question, skip down to "The Questions:"
Some Context:
There was an article I read a while back, I don't remember what the subject was anymore, but parts of the article stood out to me, to paraphrase it:
In the years before, and the years since, there were massive protests and uprisings around the world, from the streets of New York, to those of Athens, London, Jakarta, and Seattle. From the farms of Chiapas, to, if I may edge a bit close to the present, millions taking to the streets of America. Even the one great wave of revolutions in the 21st century, the Arab Spring, was quickly crushed, with *only the first, Tunisia, continuing to carry the torch of democracy, and it too is backsliding fast. Through it all, it never felt like the world was about to turn upside down, like 1848, or 1917. It always felt like "Just one more protest," or, "Just one more uprising," all of them doomed to failure, unable to truly change anything, that the world is stable, and that history has come to an end.
As I understand it, this is part of a cultural hegemony, that has spread across the world in the years since 1991, since the fall of the USSR, and the end of the Cold War. The idea that There Is No Alternative to the modern neoliberal world order, that capitalism is the only viable world system, and that the USSR was always doomed to failure, and could not have lasted a day longer than it did.
Whether you think that is true, is your opinion, but that's not what I'm asking about here. What I'm asking about is a world where the USSR did not collapse, where capitalism is not triumphant across the entire world. Where it is still in competition with a system that is trying to do things differently.
I'm not going to specify a POD, I'm here because there are people here who know far more about the USSR than I do, they could come up with one better than me. I will however put one (well, two) restriction(s), it has to be post-1945, so no Successful Spartacus Uprising, or Red May Revolution, much as I loved those TLs. (And no Deng-style reforms either.)
There were many chances at reform, I've seen some discussed on this site, many paths not taken, in '56, in '65, in '68, in '80, or in other countries such as Yugoslavia, if they could work out it's system's kinks. Maybe there's even a POD that ends with them being a multiparty socialist democracy, who knows? Even if you believe that none of these could have appreciably improved the Soviet situation, there was no reason it had to disintegrate in '91. It was a combination of Gorbachev's incoherent reforms, and botched handling of the situation that led to the Eastern Bloc's swift and quiet demise. As I understand it, there was no reason it couldn't have just kept chugging along, stagnant and authoritarian, but stable, into the 21st century, sans Gorbachev, of course.
I've seen some answers from some of the Marxist posters on this site, and to sum them up: "Neoliberalism wouldn't be viable, because with the USSR exerting even nominal ideological pressure, workers would turn to the far left, and capitalism would be in big trouble." With all due respect, I'm skeptical of this. Well the first part anyhow, about the viability of neoliberalism. There was a economic crisis in the 70's, and neoliberals claimed to have the answer, (and had business-friendly policies as well). Neoliberal policies were being implemented through the 70's, in Chile after the coup in '73, in Argentina in '76. Thatcher and Reagan were elected in '79 and '80, and both were busting unions, cutting taxes, deregulating, and privatizing en masse, whilst the Soviets were still a major ideological threat, even before Gorbachev took power. Deindustrialization and job losses were going to happen in places like the rust belt, whether that be because of automation or offshoring. NAFTA negotiations started in '88 before the Berlin Wall fell.
From what I've read from people who were alive during the Cold War, and even the posters on this site who were alive then, no one was expecting the USSR to just implode so suddenly, and I see no reason why Neoliberalism, which was building up momentum, and the austerity, inequality, and economic problems of the 2000s-2010s wouldn't come anyway, regardless of whether or not the USSR survived, and even if it's economy performed better.
Personally? I think that the neoliberals got really, really, lucky that the Eastern Bloc collapsed when it did, before the seeds that they had sown grew into bitter fruit.
The Questions:
How would the political situation, and the political climate develop, in the context of neoliberalism, with the USSR chugging along into the 21st century?
How would culture, how would politics develop, in a world where capitalism has not gained a near-total hegemony on the political spectrum?
Would groups like the PCI in Italy, or the PCF in France still be large, viable organizations?
If there is an equivalent to the Global Financial Crisis, (which I suspect there would be, given that no lessons seemed to have been learned from Japan in '92, or East Asia in '97), would things get a lot... spicier, for lack of a better term? Would we see massive revolutionary upheaval across the world?
If events like the Arab Spring kicked off, would we see soviet-backed communist factions trying to take power? (Like the PKK or something?)
TLDR:
What if neoliberalism happened, but history didn't "end" in 1991?
Sorry for the rant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yes, I know about Rojava, but they're not technically independent, and are surrounded on all sides by authoritarian regimes. I'm not that optimistic about their survival.
If you just want to get to my question, skip down to "The Questions:"
Some Context:
There was an article I read a while back, I don't remember what the subject was anymore, but parts of the article stood out to me, to paraphrase it:
In the years before, and the years since, there were massive protests and uprisings around the world, from the streets of New York, to those of Athens, London, Jakarta, and Seattle. From the farms of Chiapas, to, if I may edge a bit close to the present, millions taking to the streets of America. Even the one great wave of revolutions in the 21st century, the Arab Spring, was quickly crushed, with *only the first, Tunisia, continuing to carry the torch of democracy, and it too is backsliding fast. Through it all, it never felt like the world was about to turn upside down, like 1848, or 1917. It always felt like "Just one more protest," or, "Just one more uprising," all of them doomed to failure, unable to truly change anything, that the world is stable, and that history has come to an end.
As I understand it, this is part of a cultural hegemony, that has spread across the world in the years since 1991, since the fall of the USSR, and the end of the Cold War. The idea that There Is No Alternative to the modern neoliberal world order, that capitalism is the only viable world system, and that the USSR was always doomed to failure, and could not have lasted a day longer than it did.
Whether you think that is true, is your opinion, but that's not what I'm asking about here. What I'm asking about is a world where the USSR did not collapse, where capitalism is not triumphant across the entire world. Where it is still in competition with a system that is trying to do things differently.
I'm not going to specify a POD, I'm here because there are people here who know far more about the USSR than I do, they could come up with one better than me. I will however put one (well, two) restriction(s), it has to be post-1945, so no Successful Spartacus Uprising, or Red May Revolution, much as I loved those TLs. (And no Deng-style reforms either.)
There were many chances at reform, I've seen some discussed on this site, many paths not taken, in '56, in '65, in '68, in '80, or in other countries such as Yugoslavia, if they could work out it's system's kinks. Maybe there's even a POD that ends with them being a multiparty socialist democracy, who knows? Even if you believe that none of these could have appreciably improved the Soviet situation, there was no reason it had to disintegrate in '91. It was a combination of Gorbachev's incoherent reforms, and botched handling of the situation that led to the Eastern Bloc's swift and quiet demise. As I understand it, there was no reason it couldn't have just kept chugging along, stagnant and authoritarian, but stable, into the 21st century, sans Gorbachev, of course.
I've seen some answers from some of the Marxist posters on this site, and to sum them up: "Neoliberalism wouldn't be viable, because with the USSR exerting even nominal ideological pressure, workers would turn to the far left, and capitalism would be in big trouble." With all due respect, I'm skeptical of this. Well the first part anyhow, about the viability of neoliberalism. There was a economic crisis in the 70's, and neoliberals claimed to have the answer, (and had business-friendly policies as well). Neoliberal policies were being implemented through the 70's, in Chile after the coup in '73, in Argentina in '76. Thatcher and Reagan were elected in '79 and '80, and both were busting unions, cutting taxes, deregulating, and privatizing en masse, whilst the Soviets were still a major ideological threat, even before Gorbachev took power. Deindustrialization and job losses were going to happen in places like the rust belt, whether that be because of automation or offshoring. NAFTA negotiations started in '88 before the Berlin Wall fell.
From what I've read from people who were alive during the Cold War, and even the posters on this site who were alive then, no one was expecting the USSR to just implode so suddenly, and I see no reason why Neoliberalism, which was building up momentum, and the austerity, inequality, and economic problems of the 2000s-2010s wouldn't come anyway, regardless of whether or not the USSR survived, and even if it's economy performed better.
Personally? I think that the neoliberals got really, really, lucky that the Eastern Bloc collapsed when it did, before the seeds that they had sown grew into bitter fruit.
The Questions:
How would the political situation, and the political climate develop, in the context of neoliberalism, with the USSR chugging along into the 21st century?
How would culture, how would politics develop, in a world where capitalism has not gained a near-total hegemony on the political spectrum?
Would groups like the PCI in Italy, or the PCF in France still be large, viable organizations?
If there is an equivalent to the Global Financial Crisis, (which I suspect there would be, given that no lessons seemed to have been learned from Japan in '92, or East Asia in '97), would things get a lot... spicier, for lack of a better term? Would we see massive revolutionary upheaval across the world?
If events like the Arab Spring kicked off, would we see soviet-backed communist factions trying to take power? (Like the PKK or something?)
TLDR:
What if neoliberalism happened, but history didn't "end" in 1991?
Sorry for the rant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yes, I know about Rojava, but they're not technically independent, and are surrounded on all sides by authoritarian regimes. I'm not that optimistic about their survival.
Last edited: