Huitzilopochtli [they/them]

The reactionary countercurrent in 1989 was preceded by a series of failures in economic policy. Before the USSR’s liberalization in the Gorbachev era there was already a (probably survivable) economic decline. Changes in trade policy, in particular the massive reduction of subsidies in 1985-1986 caused massive economic problems in the already struggling Comecon nations, who had largely based their economies around receiving these subsidies (particularly energy subsidies, their industries were massively energy-inefficient). You can see this in the periods in which structural adjustment started in most Soviet allies around the world (a lot of people don’t seem to realize that most started 1986-1990). This economic decline led to larger public discontent thanks to widespread goods shortages (and is the real source of Poles pissing their pants screaming about shortages).

Additionally, there was the ideological component. If you’re a communist ally of the USSR to the point of typically adopting their party line (as was the case in European socialist states), and the USSR just utterly internally capitulates ideologically, what the fuck do you do? The beacon of revolution is now saying they want to transition to social democracy. How do you maintain a strong face? Repudiating Stalin was ideologically problematic, but openly repudiating communism as a whole relegates communist parties to the trash.

The whole Soviet bloc was leaning on the USSR and couldn’t stand independently without it. Some third world revolutionary states survived via structural adjustment. Cuba suffered greatly but managed to survive. China had distanced itself and became more autarkic and independent. The DPRK had as well, but not as dramatically. The other socialist states outside of the USSR’s camp (Albania, Yugoslavia) were too dependent on their leader’s personalities for socialism to survive without them.

I guess they would according to the nothing ever happens gang

Totalitarianism is when you don’t roll over for America like a good dog and take care of your people instead

an indigenous man as the possible president of the court

The org is still beefing, but the actual fighters move orgs based on where they think they can best get their keep, and ISIS has a hard time making a case that it’s them.

Yeah, fuck that tbh. I don’t even think the premise is right in that China’s gains came moreso from ceasing to be a pariah and opening up trade with the west and I don’t think they really benefitted much at all from the fall of the USSR (nor really did much to hasten it, most of their aid and support to their enemies was pretty pitiful), so the whole thing is kind of just silly. China certainly benefited from not being tethered to the sinking ship, but that’s a different question.

Honestly the most amazing thing about China’s awkward post-split (attempted) realpolitik is how rarely it actually yielded any benefit for them at all (other than the trade realignment).

supported the destruction of the USSR and anti-colonial movements of the world, with the justification being that that helped the PRC.

I think I missed wherever this happened, so I don’t know the full context, but this feels like a false dichotomy. China didn’t cause the USSR to capitulate ideologically in the mid 80s, taking most of the anti-colonial and socialist projects it built up as dependencies along with it. The CPSU was rotten to the core and spent its last six years in power stabbing its dependent allies in the back and leaving them dry while trying to transform the USSR itself into a social democracy.

Their parliamentary system is also crazy complex with a bunch of different types of members. Elections are first past the post, per-constituency. Some constituencies elect one member, while others elect a team of five or six all from the same party (with some mandatory ethnic representation). There are also (currently two) non-constituency members, from the opposition party, which are basically charity seats. There are also appointed members. The whole system feels knowingly constructed as a one-party system that primarily seeks opposition for the purpose of consultation, more like the États générau in pre-revolution France than a real, competitive parliament in the liberal tradition.

China may be using the sea to hide its submarines.