/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1785688
Probably couldn't pull a Mao-Nixon opening up. For one USSR was way more feared and hated. Also the USSR had the problem of all the problematic soviets and satellites under the umbrella.

Khrushchev and Gorbachev were worse.

>>1785688
We almost had that moment

>>1785694
Khrushchev made the state serve capital, Deng made capital serve the state. That’s not even getting into the countless other crimes of Khrushchev that contribute to his place in hell alongside Judas. But sure they’re both the same because communism is when no money or jobs apparently

Akshually great man theory get owned libs! Checkmate

>>1785716
I guess the departure for the timeline is that Stalin doesn’t die in 53, but lives until 59, designating Beria his successor. That also means Mao is slugging it out in Korea to 56 at the earliest, putting the Chinese economy under great strain.

>>1785761
There’s the theory that Beria poisoned Stalin, but let’s try this again. The bodyguard can’t go through with it, and kills himself instead. Beria is quickly arrested, but Stalin, having purged everyone competent outside of Beria, forgives Beria.

That is our divergence.

>>1785688
Malenkov, you mean. But more realistically, it would have taken someone like Voroshilov in power to salvage the situation

USSR's party and one-party system came to be as a result of everyone but bolsheviks betraying the Revolution. Soviet leadership from 1917 onwards - I mean by that democratically-elected deputees, who increasingly were bolshevik members - was one-party, and that meant that all the scum who would in other situations throw their lot in with nationalists, socdems, whoever else, instead joined the communist party. That's just how history unfolded, and to unfuck this shit communists should have done Mao's Cultural Revolution in USSR. It was a more or less a mistake for China, but for USSR, especially AFTER the war had happened, and USSR enjoyed peaceful situation? Totally

Oh, and about Khruschev and his wankers. Khruschev joined bolsheviks after getting elected a deputee in Ukrainian People's Republic - that republic that was run by inefficient socdems and nationalists and who tried to steer Ukraine away from Russia. After that he was a political officer in all kinds of organizations, and even when he went to learn a higher education after the civil war he was a political representative of something-something there. In other words, he was a master fucking careerist

>>1785784
Just more dramatic to have Beria, the rapist, end up being the savior figure for the Soviet Union. Besides, who’s more willing to run a Cultural Revolution, Malenkov or Beria?

>>1785688
>what if Stalin had been succeeded by a Deng Xiaoping-like figure?
He was, so…exactly the same.
>How would history have changed if the USSR had enough vigor to survive to the modern day?
That would require a completely different history of WWII. In great patriotic war like 80-90% of communists were killed, the vanguard was destroyed and since the transition wasn't finished it was a matter of time for USSR to fall back to capitalism.

>>1785784
Which comes from the same “sources” who slander Beria and Stalin as pedophiles. It is true that Stalin died under suspicious circumstances and that he was in good health prior, but it’s pretty much common knowledge that Khrushchev paid off Zionist doctors to have him discreetly poisoned

>>1785688
>but what if Stalin had been succeeded by a Deng Xiaoping-like figure?
the USSR eventually did have a deng-like reformist figure: Grobachov. Dengists absolutely loathe this comparison but its true. The only difference is that gorby failed while deng succeeded.

>>1785842
>The only difference is that gorby failed while deng succeeded.
I remember reading something about Deng saying that Gorby was stupid because he made economic reforms second and political first, while Deng did the opposite. Which basically meant they had same goal, just diffirent methods.

>>1785842
Let me guess, Gorbachov was full of good intentions, but failed at everything; same as Khruschev. And in no way, shape, or form could he be a traitor; and neither is Khruschev. But Deng, who went out of his way to prevent revisionism, to maintain Mao's good image, is a traitor to Mao, he did exactly the same thing as Gorbachev or Khruschev, but succeeded?

>>1785859
>But Deng, who went out of his way to prevent revisionism,
He was the main revisionist.
>maintain Mao's good image
Who gives a crap about that. Mao was a fucking nationalist retard.
>is a traitor to Mao
no one gives a crap about that either. But he was a traitor to socialism and proletariat.
>he did exactly the same thing as Gorbachev
Not the same, but with the same goal in mind.

>>1785865
>Deng: continue socialism, remove revisionist retards from everywhere, bring prosperity to chinese people, succeed
<Gorbachev: return to capitalism, erode communist party, allow non-communists into power, foster nationalism and division, bring ruin to Soviet people, succeed

They are the same picture

>>1785885
>They are the same picture
Yes, they are. Deng done away with whatever passed for socialism before him and started moving towards capitalism. Eventually China got full blown porky and even saved imperialist debt system back in 2008, all on the back of chinese workers who suffered immensely.

Wouldn't this require that China be a part of the USSR instead of an independent country? You would need to have Mao killed in combat before or during the Long March for that to happen.

>>1785906
Just today https://archive.ph/1nGsi

The “China shock” which followed the accession by the People’s Republic to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 is so famous that it has its own Wikipedia page, opens new tab. It is well deserved. China’s emergence as the workshop of the world comprehensively reshaped the global economy, raised the living standards of its 1.2 billion citizens faster than any other country in history, and provided manufactured goods to the rest of the world at unbeatable prices.

It also had some epoch-making negative effects, however. It played a leading role
, opens new tab in accelerating the deindustrialisation of large parts of the United States, spurring a lurch into protectionism, and may have hastened the general political meltdown in several Western democracies.
Now a second China shock is quietly detonating in international finance. Two decades of current account surpluses enabled the country to accumulate the largest trove of foreign savings the world has ever seen. Since the turn of the millennium, it has amassed net foreign assets worth $4.3 trillion, making it by some distance the largest creditor nation. Having this gigantic stock of dollars at its disposal has made China into a titan of global finance as well as manufacturing.

Like the trade shock, this upending of the global financial order has had both good and bad effects. In its first phase, between 2001 and 2008, China’s net foreign savings took the form of official reserve assets which it mostly invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. The country was behind what then Fed Chair Ben Bernanke called, opens new tab the “global savings glut” that drove the United States’ yawning current account deficit, depressed real interest rates, and – abetted by lax regulation and reckless speculators – eventually sparked the credit crisis of 2008.

>>1785906
>it’s another “Leftcom thinks communism is a checklist of Good Things” shitfest
How many times does it need to be spoonfed to you people what the real movement is and that it’s not a utopia without money or work or hierarchy? You’re a western idealist trying to lecture actual communists how to do communism properly

>>1785917
>muh accelerationism
>mu 4d deng/xi chess
cope

>>1785919
You are a fascist faggot trying to pass for revolutionary. As all fascist faggots did in history.

>>1785842
China also had a liberal Yeltsin type figure: Zhao Ziyang
but unlike Yeltsin, Zhao lost and was purged after supporting Tiananmen protests.

>>1785906
I see china going the opposite way towards maoism actually

>>1786065
I already said they might be rolling back into maoism and you know what that means. That means you're become maoist too.

>>1785923
>You are a faggot trying to pass
/pol/ or hormone junkie projection? It's anyone's guess, since you come from the same demographics.

>>1785705
Got a bit of a hot the about Pizzaman, if he just did his economic reforms and nothing else and the ussr was still around to this day, he'd be more popular and upon his death he'd be praised as a great leader of the Union by the same people that hate on him OTL

>>1785705
How many of these memes about surface-level comparisons between different historical figures have you made? The Mao ᴉuᴉlossnW one didn't hit for you?
It's interesting that the theoretical gap concerning Maoist handling of agriculture is so deep for Westerners. The gap was never bridged with the USSR, which was detrimental. But I believe the Americans being unable to conceive of Maoist agriculture has been a huge positive for China.

>>1786078
Americans are a bunch of retards that are programmed to bark at the word communists while their capitalists nations descend into gangland

>>1786083
Communism will come to America, just without the label, it will be communist in content entirely but advertise itself as "the new freedom movement" or "Americanism" or something

>>1786095
Yeah just neetbux, expansion of section 8, more food stamps, free healthcare and college, nationalizing sone businesses… And just like that. communism. Then they'll rant about how much they hate commies.

>>1786095
>Americanism
lol, no. Look at the writing on the wall: everyone under 35 is basically a leftist at this point, and I think the current situation will be the nail in the coffin for any sort of affinity young people might have felt to this country.

Important commentary on BDS

>>1786095
"or something"
You can't even finish plagiarizing the quote?

>>1786100
You forgot massive expansion of non car transportation infrastructure and Chinese style investment in rural areas

>>1786128
What quote? The Sinclair Lewis one about fascism?

>>1786132
I've heard that Americanism bit before. Whatever, plagiarism isn't real. None of the courts or universities here are real. Social media post attributions? Buddy you better not believe that's real. Balls to the wall, ignore me from before.

>>1786078

Got details?

>>1786307
I don't have one cohesive text to point to here it's across several so I will hunt down the book screenshots about Maoist ecosocialism. John Bellamy Foster's good article-wise

>>1785688
deng was basically khrushchev but less deluded into thinking he was a communist. At least deng said he didn't even know what socialism was