If the Russian Empire had collapsed in 1917 instead of 1991, you would probably have had the same scale of ethnic warfare and economic degradation, but without the intervening progress.
John Lacny:
What then becomes of the history of the rest of the world in the twentieth century, particularly the war against fascism and the rise of the national liberation movements? This side of these events, it's hard to remember just how much of a push the struggle against global white supremacy got from the USSR's very presence. This is not a small point, no?
Jim Farmelant:
And let us not forget that the October Revolution indirectly brought considerable benefits to the working classes of First World capitalist nations as well. Its example inspired working class militancy for decades. The emergence of the welfare state was in part expedited by the fear of God that was instilled in the Western ruling classes by the Soviet example.
--------------------------------------
Good points all, from list posters whom I respect.
I agree with all of the above, as I think you know.
But the proposition that the Russian Revolution and the monumental worldwide effort to build socialism in the 20th century were a success on account of the undeniable progress achieved in the USSR (and in China) - which seems to me to be implicit in your remarks - would have a lot more force if both societies hadn't, in fact, rejected socialism and embraced capitalism at the end of the century, and if something more lasting elsewhere had resulted from the heroic struggle of millions of others inspired by their lead.
Saying so doesn't diminish the accomplishments of the many-sided socialist movement or the ideals for which it fought.
"I pondered all these things, and how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name." (William Morris)
Enough from me for now on this subject.
MG