The Deprogram

The USSR has made a number of mistakes in foreign policy:

• wanting to apply their own methods of revolution to China rigidly (both in organization and warfare),
• urging China to wait for a more opportune moment for revolution,
• urging the same of DPRK,
• overly funding communist parties to the point they had no reason to try and find other avenues of funding. When funds stopped, all of these parties almost died and most of them turned eurocommunist to retain dues and membership.
• pushing of a soviet theoretical line, which had the effect of teaching only one method of revolution/marxist thought.
• getting pulled into "proxy" conflicts (I don't really like the implications of 'proxy' but I digress), which opened the way for color revolutions to take hold.

As the first successful socialist experiment we could argue, and I do argue that, that it's not like there was a lot of textbooks to pull from. They applied what they knew that worked and everything else was still to be determined, and they did a lot of things right too. Furthermore I also think the world situation around that time was very different; Asia was freeing itself following the defeat of Japan in ww2, there were a number of socialist revolutions all around the same time in the 50s, then in the 60s Africa struggled for independence.

And yet we see that all of this was not enough to defeat the imperial hegemony, so what went wrong? And why repeat the mistakes of the past? We see that it wasn't always correct to 'just' follow the USSR. These mistakes are not entirely the USSR's fault, they're just dialectical. They exist in contradiction and as one element grows the other grows as well. And likewise not everything was of their own making, they were after all constantly under siege from the United States.

Probably nobody thought the USSR would ever be able to be dismantled. And yet it was, and it wreaked havoc in the soviet republics, the DPRK, Cuba. If the PRC were ever to fall, what would remain of world socialism? Are we today in a situation where it would not lead to the post-1991 periods other countries saw? I think so yes, because the PRC has picked a different direction from the USSR in that regard, but I'm presenting the question.

And yet with these mistakes, so to speak, I still support the USSR and would never speak ill of it publicly. My criticisms of their policies are to notice the pothole and mark it clearly so people coming after me can avoid it. Capitalism itself was not established overnight; it took decades of struggle and centuries overall to reach the level it has. Even today there are some countries that have retained their royal family after compromise with the feudal lords.

People like empanada are "neither washington nor beijing" today (he has called China imperialist and 'communist in name only') and would have been "neither washington nor moscow" back in the 60s no matter what they might say they think of the USSR today with hindsight. But where do these words lead new comrades? Imagine just starting to read Marx and your group tells you there is no such thing as a socialist country today and everything sucks, what are you even struggling for at that point? To be right? To flex? To teach newcomers that communism has been thoroughly defeated in the 90s, and we have reached the end of history?