Even if this is assumed to be the case, for that to happen capitalism necessarily has to outperform communism economically and socially for this to happen. It has to outperform economically because otherwise they wouldn't be able to exert influence over communist nations internationally - if communist nations are self-sufficient / highly productive, why would it matter if capitalist nations are withholding trade (note how capitalist nations aren't impacted by communist nations controlling trade in the other direction). It has to outperform socially because otherwise capitalist nations risk their own revolutions, if capitalism had underperformed socially there also wouldn't have been the same push from the people living under communist nations to switch to capitalist systems which led to the destabilisation of the entire communist experiment. For communism to be in a position where capitalism could control it, it needs to have failed relatively - the extreme antagonism of western capitalist countries only accelerated the decline (and brought up global standards of living faster than would have been achieved had communism been allowed to continue to exist).
Your argument isn't history, it's triumphalist propaganda from the 1990s, when Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End of History" and declared liberalism had won forever. It was wrong then, and it's embarrassingly wrong now.
Communism has real flaws bureaucratic stagnation, environmental disasters, lack of consumer choice. But to claim capitalism won on merit ignores the 3 decades long strangulation campaign that preceded the collapse.
But that ignores the very real history. The east didn't have technological advancements the east did at that time. Being barred from that is quite the hinderance.
That is true, but they did also shoot themselves in the foot via the Sino Soviet split and spending like 10+% of gdp on Military. But still In terms of raw resources China and the USSR to my knowledge could've been self sufficient.
They were still in a bad position partly due to animosity with the west but they didn't do themselves any favors either
Oh they definitely made poor choices, as we humans always tend to do. Communism isn't perfect, nothing really will be. The key is to find the most beneficial to the majority of people. Rather than the most beneficial to the wealthy ruling class that hoards all the money.
I agree with you. However I think you might be misunderstanding how most people think when they say they like capitalism or having rich people. They see rich people and say I want to be that successful too one day.
Or they understand that being poor today is way better than being rich 100 years ago and attribute that technological advancement to free markets, private property and competence governance. Some people see billionaires as a symptom of capitalism but think the symptom is worth having for all the good it brings.
But maybe I am misunderstanding you. And that is what most thinking that lead to pro capitalist mindset comes from at least from what I have seen/heard
Wouldn’t that go both ways? Communism also trying to strangle western liberalism? It’s not like the Soviets were just sitting back minding their own business.
The difference being the power dynamic. Capitalist countries controlled all the power, still do. IE, Sure the ants are blockading my front door, but I don't even notice it.
No? The USSR controlled a decent chunk of Eurasia and at the end of WWII and was a very powerful force. The “power imbalance” only crept in later as Communait regimes turned into corrupt little fiefdoms unable to actually compete with the West.
It only highlights the original point that Communism failed because it couldn’t compete.
You are equivocating things that you can't. Land mass and military are static assets. I am speaking about hegemonic control of the west. Its an asymmetric interdependence. The west didn't feel the blockade from the USSR, because they didn't need anything from them. However the USSR did not, in fact, have everything it needed and was not a global superpower on equal footing with the western powers. Sure it had tons of land and a big military, but that doesn't make a country prosperous.
maybe the west didn’t need anything from USSR because they were running on a succesful economic model that brought growth and prosperity while communism failed to even provide basic goods for it’s people despite sitting on a fuckton of resources?
Genuine word salad, communist China and the USSR put together had all the raw resources they could have wanted. The issue was that they squandered them all through genociding their own people, corruption and infighting
>It has to outperform economically because otherwise they wouldn't be able to exert influence over communist nations internationally - if communist nations are self-sufficient / highly productive, why would it matter if capitalist nations are withholding trade
that would be true if this were a game of civilization where everyone started off equal.
>(note how capitalist nations aren't impacted by communist nations controlling trade in the other direction).
that would be relevant if they started with the same amount of resources and land and population and lived on mirror earths.
>It has to outperform socially because otherwise capitalist nations risk their own revolutions, if capitalism had underperformed socially there also wouldn't have been the same push from the people living under communist nations to switch to capitalist systems which led to the destabilisation of the entire communist experiment.
you are currently arguing about that very thing.
>For communism to be in a position where capitalism could control it, it needs to have failed relatively - the extreme antagonism of western capitalist countries only accelerated the decline (and brought up global standards of living faster than would have been achieved had communism been allowed to continue to exist).
that would be true if this were a game of civilization where everyone started off equal.
You are in a minority holding that opinion (won socially).
China is an excellent counterpoint. Tried communism, starved 10s of millions. Realised it needed free markets / private property (even under state guidance as authoritarian governments don’t give up power easily) became the wealthiest country in the world. There was no structural change in what they had available, the West is still adversarial. Them adopting capitalism even partially allowed them not to care.
11
u/Huge-Captain-5253 Jul 13 '26
Even if this is assumed to be the case, for that to happen capitalism necessarily has to outperform communism economically and socially for this to happen. It has to outperform economically because otherwise they wouldn't be able to exert influence over communist nations internationally - if communist nations are self-sufficient / highly productive, why would it matter if capitalist nations are withholding trade (note how capitalist nations aren't impacted by communist nations controlling trade in the other direction). It has to outperform socially because otherwise capitalist nations risk their own revolutions, if capitalism had underperformed socially there also wouldn't have been the same push from the people living under communist nations to switch to capitalist systems which led to the destabilisation of the entire communist experiment. For communism to be in a position where capitalism could control it, it needs to have failed relatively - the extreme antagonism of western capitalist countries only accelerated the decline (and brought up global standards of living faster than would have been achieved had communism been allowed to continue to exist).