What if the Soviet Union never broke apart?

Jan 2013
316
Delaware
Do you think we would have continued our arms race until eventual war or would we have had a diplomatic rundown?

What kind of expansions might they have tried?
 
Jan 2009
118
The world would probably be a war zone right now, and a lot of countries would of had to unite in order to defend themselves from them.

Who knows, there might have even been several "new" European countries formed by smaller ones who merged..

Basically, the world would probably be a worse place than it already is. However if for some reason their communism would have been greatly reformed and stayed corruption-free, then perhaps a better form of government might have been born. But the chances of that are slim to none..
 
Jan 2009
639
We would have eventually had to go to war. The whole plan of our defense against the Soviet Union rested on holding out until they failed from corruption. I can only assume that they would have held on through an iron fist. We would have waited and waited in a Cold War until something finally pushed us over the edge.

So...World War III. It would have certainly been interesting to see which way China would have went though.
 
Jan 2009
118
They probably would of formed their own group, but perhaps they would of temporarily picked a side just to see what would of happened.

As for World War III, at this rate, we could see such a thing within the next 200 years or so.
 
Jan 2009
639
I actually don't think we'll ever see a true World War III just because of the changing face of warfare.

We are just a few years away from robotic soldiers. IRobot (The people who made the Roomba) has a working model that even uses the metal storm system. I'll just let the Youtube videos speak for themselves. This one isn't as impressive as any of the singular demonstrations, but it shows the full range. Just about 3 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLNuBq0NQJE

I figure that we've basically seen the end of massed troop combat. It will all be high-tech fighting and squad to squad soon. That's really going to upset the balance of power though. Interesting times are probably ahead.
 
Jan 2013
316
Delaware
I actually don't think we'll ever see a true World War III just because of the changing face of warfare.

We are just a few years away from robotic soldiers. IRobot (The people who made the Roomba) has a working model that even uses the metal storm system. I'll just let the Youtube videos speak for themselves. This one isn't as impressive as any of the singular demonstrations, but it shows the full range. Just about 3 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLNuBq0NQJE

I figure that we've basically seen the end of massed troop combat. It will all be high-tech fighting and squad to squad soon. That's really going to upset the balance of power though. Interesting times are probably ahead.
Agreed, that's going to change the dynamics largely. Casualties of war were one of the biggest things to restrain warfare. With more and more unmanned fighting being used, the decision to use force (and go to war) could be made much lighter.
 
Feb 2009
40
If hitler had won WWII we would be in a much better world, well at least in a few aspects.

1. Everyone would be speaking fluent german and therefore there'd be no misunderstandings.
2. The technology we would have would be amazing, far superior to what we have now.

However all this would come at a cost and there's a really high chance we'd be trekking the galaxy to try and claim planets as ours. So therefore he couldn't win and didn't. Things happen for a reason, even if you never know why, to someone somewhere it would make sense.
 
Feb 2009
54
Well if the Soviet union would still exist (which wouldn't happen with democracy) then I believe they would try to conquer more countries, and US wouldn't be stopping Iraq and the Afghans, they'd still be in the Cold War vs the Soviets. There would still be the iron curtain, therefore many countries in Eastern Europe would not be visited as much as they are today (Poland and etc...) Also, they would be on a quest to rule the World. Literally.
 
Jan 2009
639
Rice Pudding - Yeah. The only way for them to survive would be to go to war and gain new resources. I have a feeling wouldn't all be radioactive ash if the Cold War had gone on any longer. We also traded nukes due to misunderstandings on two occasions. *sigh* So close to the abyss, but we pulled back at the last second. All of our accomplishments occured through our lucky survival. Really makes you think.

Websuperstar - That was probably the most insane things I've ever read. Congratulations. I really don't even know how to respond to it. The only part I can think of is that the Germans would have been severely limited by their techology. They dismissed a number of theories because Einstein (a Jew) thought that they were right. The rest of their advances were also paid for in blood through testing on captured prisoners.

I guess you see that as a bright future though.
 
Feb 2009
30
Earth
Had the USSR survived, US would not have attacked Iraq and Afghan, while Russia would have been imposing its agenda on smaller nations. But Russia and China are regaining strength....so US's domination is close to end!
 
Jan 2009
140
Agreed, that's going to change the dynamics largely. Casualties of war were one of the biggest things to restrain warfare. With more and more unmanned fighting being used, the decision to use force (and go to war) could be made much lighter.
Devestating weapon. Dont you just love the incredible ability of our species to obliterate each other:)
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Well, it was inevitable that some countries would break off but some, i think, would have stayed. Especially if Gorbachev had had the chance to carry out his policies. The world would probably be a better place for it.

The problem though, was not the breaking up or the USSR's dissolution, it was its formation. The premature revolution led the country into economic turmoil, social chaos and an undemocratic authoritarian Government. Which essentially ensured that it was not "communist", as its leaders claimed.
 
Jan 2009
639
Well, the problem it faced at its core really was economic issues from communism.

The hell-hole tyranny they suffered from was standard political greed. But the reason it fell was because communism just doesn't work.

There's really too many reasons to go into for a forum post, but that was the crux of it. Heck, from what I've heard, the only people who still believed in it by the 1980s were some of the East Germans and we saw how that worked out at the end. We actually went over that a few days ago in class. Also saw a lot of interviews with people who had lived through it.

The synopsis was simple. Things weren't all terrible. There was more room for artistic stuff, less worries over work, an active social environoment, etc. There was also crippling tyranny to hold the people in line and keep them from leaving. There was little room for advancement. One was also completely at the mercy of what the government felt was for the greater good...so yeah.

Just won't work unless human nature completely changes.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Well, the problem it faced at its core really was economic issues from communism.

The hell-hole tyranny they suffered from was standard political greed. But the reason it fell was because communism just doesn't work.

There's really too many reasons to go into for a forum post, but that was the crux of it. Heck, from what I've heard, the only people who still believed in it by the 1980s were some of the East Germans and we saw how that worked out at the end. We actually went over that a few days ago in class. Also saw a lot of interviews with people who had lived through it.

The synopsis was simple. Things weren't all terrible. There was more room for artistic stuff, less worries over work, an active social environoment, etc. There was also crippling tyranny to hold the people in line and keep them from leaving. There was little room for advancement. One was also completely at the mercy of what the government felt was for the greater good...so yeah.

Just won't work unless human nature completely changes.
*Head falls into hands* Haven't you people picked anything up from me?

The economic system of the USSR was not communist...

*yawns at having to repeat it for the heck-knows-what-number-it-is-now time*

It was state capitalist. The "state" part in that is why it didn't work. Governments cannot run an economy.
 
Jan 2009
639
That's sorta falling into the territory of ridiculous semantics. It was not in any form capitalist.

The price systems were not in effect. The best way to describe it would be a communist state in the "transitional phase" that Marx described. The problem is that they were never actually able to leave the transitional stage and fell apart due to a lack of development.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
That's sorta falling into the territory of ridiculous semantics. It was not in any form capitalist.

The price systems were not in effect. The best way to describe it would be a communist state in the "transitional phase" that Marx described. The problem is that they were never actually able to leave the transitional stage and fell apart due to a lack of development.
The transitional phase is socialism. The economic system employed by the soviet union was state capitalism. Oh, and there is no "communist system". It is an economic ideology, but it's just an advanced form of socialism.

The economic system of the USSR and that previously employed by China and that still in place in Cuba was/is state capitalism. You see, it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. (For a scaled down idea of this, see protectionism).

WSM economists said:
In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced.
Also, it is impossible to have socialism in one country alone. Socialists (and communists) are internationalists. It is against our basic ideology.
 
Jan 2009
639
Could you split the hair any finer?

It's a state run system with the goal of pushing forward the rights of the working (stated goal at least...humans tend to lie).

The point is that this was about the closest the world ever came to putting a communist system in place, and it failed.

Please explain how a "true" communist system would be better or even different. As opposed to a government run system, with a non-price based distribution system, and the rights of the worker in mind?
--
Regardless, the problems are the same. Communism removes the personal drive to succeed and causes floundering. Here's the example I remember. If you get paid $5 to make small shirts, or $5 to make XL shirts, which are you going to make? The fact that they killed the price system was at the heart of the issue.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
Disunited Queendom
Could you split the hair any finer?
Well, actually, it's not splitting hairs. The delusion that the Soviet Union employed a system of socialism or communism has denied my party and the entire left of so many votes in the past.

It's a state run system with the goal of pushing forward the rights of the working (stated goal at least...humans tend to lie).
You're describing the Soviet Union, not communism or socialism.

The point is that this was about the closest the world ever came to putting a communist system in place, and it failed.
Lenin completely misunderstood socialism and ended up implementing state capitalism. It's irrelevant what he actually intended to implement.

Please explain how a "true" communist system would be better or even different. As opposed to a government run system, with a non-price based distribution system, and the rights of the worker in mind?
A communist or socialist system would be controlled by the workers, and by the people of the world. There would be a lot of control by the people, huge democratisation, probably direct democracy for a local area. The local governments would have the majority of power, if there was a form of Government.

Regardless, the problems are the same. Communism removes the personal drive to succeed and causes floundering. Here's the example I remember. If you get paid $5 to make small shirts, or $5 to make XL shirts, which are you going to make? The fact that they killed the price system was at the heart of the issue.
Wrong. That's a myth. Socialism does not mean "everyone gets paid equally". Socialism means fair pay.

"To each according to their ability, each according to need."

I'm presuming you understand what that actually means.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
Communism has been redefined a number of times as one leader in the USSR came into power after the other. There was no true communism along Karl Marx lines, more stalinism, etc, isms and in the end it was more of a dictatorship than anything else. The majority of people were forced to share everything they had, including their jobs and a small minority working in sought after Government jobs could have as much of everything as they like on the black market. Markets were not really free for everyone. When they went to their shops, the shops were mostly empty. The USSR over centuries has been a country of despots and small groups of people controlling the masses, the masses rising up and trying to change leadership, and in the end it seems to revert back to the template of oppression and lack of true freedom.
 
Last edited: