Why was it the East that took up communism when it's largely a movement started by Western intellectuals?

Why was it the East that took up communism when it's largely a movement started by Western intellectuals?

Because the (((Western intellectuals))) organized a takeover in Russia. It wasn't something Eastern Europeans wanted themselves.

What about China?

That's a better example, at least Chinese revolutionaries were actually Chinese.

The founders of Communist ideology were primarily Jewish.

This doesn't answer anything

Idk

Western Europe was much more stable than Eastern Europe.

/thread

But many countries in the East were resistant to Western ideas for a long time. Why did they accept this one?

cause people's lives were a lot shittier

Remember, despite being europeanized, Jews never lost their asiatic character or spirit. Communism is very much eastern in this way.

I wonder about this too, Germany was the birthplace of socialism and Russia was an archaic country where pogroms were still a thing.

The answer is German interference, though.

the (intellectuals) took the idea and ran with it realizing you could overthrow a monarchy with it.

>The answer is German interference, though.
This is the correct answer. An insurgent group in enemy country was suported. That thing got outta control. Communists gained a foothold in Russia and exerted their own influence.
There are several examples of intelligence operations turning out in creating new enemies.
The Brits created Saudi Arabia to have an advantage over the Ottoman Empire.
Burgers toppled the democratic administration of Iran which later turned out to become a theocracy they couldn't control and several other blunders.

Well eastern Europe was mostly just Russia. Why radical socialism had such a foothold in Russia seems to be a hiccup of history. Though I'd say the main thing was that the Czar was so uncompromising and naively trying to fight against the flow of history by suppressing pro-democratic political change. It allowed the radicals to take over.


Beyond that, the thing is the east is underdeveloped. It turned out "Communism" is most popular in the underdeveloped so called third world. Despite Marxism explicitly believing that revolution will/must come from the most developed nations on the planet.

This seems to be because Communism was or was seen as the main current of anti-colonialism, in comparison to a supporting or at least sympathetic Capitalism. This gels with revolutionary nationalism. So young revolutionaries started reading Marx and looking the Soviet Union when they were getting hyped up, thinking of ways to fuck the domineering western man in their various nations. This is especially true in Asia imo.

The other appeal was that, for a time, the USSR provided a seemingly viable model for quick effective modernization on a nations own terms without having to kowtow to pro-capitalist/colonialist global elites. People like a winner and in the 60s the USSR looked like one, so they copied.

>It wasn't something Eastern Europeans wanted themselves
>What were worker's militia

>Why radical socialism had such a foothold in Russia seems to be a hiccup of history.
Not really. Communism collective nature is appealing to people more collectivist. Russians among them. Its easy to forget that the nations of central and Eastern Europe went from monarchy to communism. One authoritarian government to another.

I like this insight by Mencius Moldbug.

>If you see democracy as a pest, like Dutch elm disease, it makes perfect sense. Dutch elm disease originates in China. Therefore, Chinese elms are resistant to Dutch elm disease. But not immune! It’s still a crippling disease in China. But the trees live.

>The result of globalization: Chinese elms dominate the world. And hybrids. An elm does not live, anywhere in the world, unless its DNA is mostly Chinese. It would be a mistake to conclude from this that Dutch elm disease is good for elm trees, and the Chinese should export it to everyone. Unless they’re just plain evil.

Just substitute "democracy" for "communism". As a result of being native to the Western world, there is natural resistence to communism in countries like Germany or England, such as a strong civil society, decentralized polical culture, traditional conservative tradition.

In countries like Russia, China or in Latin America, communism easily dominates the intellectual sphere because native ideologies have no "immunity" to it. Before communism could take over Russia, it had already taken the Russian intelligentsia, just read Dostoyevsky's "Demons" to see their mentality of infatuation with anything foreign that would led to the revolution.

im not even a communist and i know all of them wanted germany as their first choice for a revolution

Chinese intellectuals that had studied in the West. Same goes for Ho Chi Minh.

Westerners were all rich and decadent bourgeoisie, eastern countries had more ripe material conditions for revolution.

Maoism is Communism with Chinese Characteristics

t. Deng Xiaoping

This. Communism was the most viable and potent ideology to adopt to try and oppose/combat western nations at the time.