Why did one succeed while the other failed?

the lesson to learn here is that you should never give the people more freedom BEFORE you improve their quality of life and trust that they won't rebel and ruin everything.

Deng never loosened the ccp's grip, only opened China to foreign investment.

>>17808255 (OP)
China is racially homogenous, whilst the Soviet Union was extremely ethnically diverse. There is great strength in one people.

>>17808255 (OP)
managed capitalism. One of the first thing Deng did was to de-collectivize agriculture and most marxists will swear at you if you say Stalin shouldn't have collectivized to begin with

The Cold War is what made all the difference
After the end of the Second World War, the USSR was given a chance to recieve financial aid from the United States a la Marshall Plan but Stalin refused over power politics, instead hoping to leverage Soviet industry to help in their economic recovery.
Then Western Germany was allowed to join NATO, and the Soviets responded with the Warsaw Pact and that was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, as it was the start of the Cold War
While the United States and the rest of NATO could enjoy a peacetime economy, the USSR found itself stuck in a perpectual wartime economy, with most economic output going towards feeding an increasingly hungry Military Industrial Complex instead of raising the living standards of the average Soviet worker. The Soviet MIC then became infested with corrupt power hungry statesmen that had a vested interest in turning the USSR into an Oligarchy. While NATO could take a more offensive position thanks to American soft power, the USSR simply could not. Maybe things would've been different if Stalin had just accepted American aid but we will never know.
China never had to deal with these issues, in fact they've more or less been able to enjoy a peacetime economy since 1949

>>17808292
>China is racially homogenous
Not as true as the CCP wants you to think. "Racial homogeneity" has nothing to do with China's modern successes

>>17808255 (OP)
The short fellow on the right was a fascist.

>>17808298
This was always something that made me completely confused. Khrushchev goes stalin bad yadda yadda doesn't decolectivise the farms even though one of his problems is that the harvests in post war USSR, with all the mechanisation and artificial fertilisers are short of 1913 numbers and back then people had none of these.

>>17808255 (OP)
National socialism/fascism works better than socialism. Half of China's economy is owned by the government, while the other half is owned by private business. This mixed system maintains a good balance and turned out to be more successful than pure capitalism or pure communism.

>>17808292
China has like 56 different ethnic groups with populations that dwarf European countries and like a dozen different major languages.

>>17808255 (OP)
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/surprise-authoritarian-resilience-china/
Reality is, Mao and the CPC were able to institute actual direct democracy and far more effective policy testing through various methods and the CPC is a far more pragmatic, responsive and dynamic party than the CPSU ever was.
The USSR was Marxist-Leninism 0.5 beta version, the CPC is Marxist Leninism 2.0.
The idea Deng saved China is false. Chinese productivity and growth overall was astronomically high under Mao outside of the GLF (which was Deng's and Shaoqi pet project to begin with) and parts of the Cultural Revolution.

>>17808292
>China is racially homogenous
wat

>>17808255 (OP)
Because Mao stole the Mandate of Heaven and thus got that ancient Chinese mojo, the CCP has been struggling to retain it ever since however and when they lose it they will collapse. Laozi told me about it the other day.

>>17808292
>China is racially homogenous
This is your brain on /pol/

>>17808255 (OP)
Deng: war veteran who led campaigns like the invasion of Tibet, seized power after Mao's death to personally save his country
Gorbachev: young idealistic politician who was chosen to be the fall guy after decades of failed politburo boomer rule

>>17809047
>>17809561
>>17810553
It's true. Less than half of the USSR was Russian (compared to 85% of the Russian federation today). Meanwhile 94% of China's population live in the core provinces where they increasingly all speak mandarin and are indistinguishable from one another.
This is not even going into how the USSR had official policies where they would invent fake ethnic groups and give them their own culture.

>>17810818
Stalin purged all the "rightist" bolshevieks who believed in stuff like economics and ideological pragmatism. The people who survived or obtained power during and after Stalin were all "triumph of the will"-types who believed that if you just believed hard enough in socialism you would succeed and any failures had to be due to saboteurs or bad faith leaders

>>17811367
>>17809053
ops

>>17809246
And they make up less than 9% of Chinas population retard.

>>17808298
>>17809053

“Collectivism” is just a fancy way of saying “we're stealing land because we don't trust you”.

After “collectivization”, Deng “decollectivized” by making them cooperatives or private-public trusts – which isn't to say people got back their property in any real way than in nominal terms.

It's similar in America, when land is auctioned: there's no inheritance, only 20-30-40-50 year tenancy.
Whoever believes in a Creator, do ask why only one planet, stuck in here, with limited land...

>>17811404
why could they simply not jump over the step of creating Kolkhoz and go straight to running them through companies?

>>17808255 (OP)

The USSR in 1975 was much more economically developed than the PRC. It was stagnating, but it was further ahead then China, which was still largely agrarian. Most of Soviet baby boomers went to university and were looking forward to higher paying work that required technical-intellectual labor for re-tooling factories (the scientific technological revolution was the term used by Brezhnev). The consequence of Khrushchev's secret speech and the idea of a morally sound humanist socialism was much more palpable in the USSR, unlike the PRC which had the Cultural Revolution. Furthermore, there was much more housing, informal markets, and automobile transport under Brezhnev and Gorby, creating a quasi-private sphere that evaded state surveillance. So people outwardly still believed in communism, but were allowed to privately dismiss it. Any further liberalization would only create further demand to dismiss communism publicly, which the Communist leadership did itself. This is why the army and the workers did not side with the 1991 coup. USSR was sociologically and economically in a completely different place then the PRC, where the party instituted an agrarian reform because that was the basis of the economy.

>>17811404
>It's similar in America, when land is auctioned: there's no inheritance, only 20-30-40-50 year tenancy.
But in this scenario, the duration of lease for a given plot of productive land is a product of the value of the land itself, which is usually a response to greater market forces. For example, in an economic downturn, land becomes cheaper, allowing tenants to lease it for longer, which allows them to use the land more productively up until the land becomes too expensive to lease, in which case more productive tenant move in, inflating land value until you reach an equilibruim and the value of that land normalizes. In a collectivist command economy, the leasing of land is not necesarilly dictated by market forces, so you wont always make the best use of said land.

>>17809273
>the CPC is a far more pragmatic, responsive and dynamic party than the CPSU ever was.
Yeah I think this is a big thing. The CPC is prone to overreacting (see COVID) but they will lurch into gear when something fucked up happens (which happens a lot). I knew someone who lived in China as a foreigner, and he remarked on this, because the local cop who was assigned to his bloc gave him a survey to fill out. And it had all these questions on it, like, "how's the condition of local parks" and "what is your rating of the vegetables in the local markets." And the cop kept badgering him over the course of a week to fill it out and turn it in. But the veggies aren't bad and the parks are clean.

I don't think the Chinese revolution can be 1:1 mapped onto the Russian revolution or Marx/Engels/Lenin. There are points of contact and those ideas were important, but it was also very Chinese, and was also about restoring what many Chinese see as what a proper and strong / central government "should" do. This might have even been a problem for the reformers in the Deng era who wanted to reduce people's dependency on the state to do everything.

>>17809273
>The idea Deng saved China is false. Chinese productivity and growth overall was astronomically high under Mao outside of the GLF (which was Deng's and Shaoqi pet project to begin with) and parts of the Cultural Revolution.
This is just false. China was stagnating and being left behind until Deng's reforms. In 1960 China had a larger economy than Japan, by 1990 Japan was 7x larger, then in 2009 China overtook Japan again.
The reality is Deng saved China and singlehandedly reversed the Marxist orthodoxy, including the very psychology. From "collectivism is good" to "it's glorious to get rich". Notably he eliminated the concept of "class struggle" from official party ideology, and replaced it with development, at the 3rd plenary in 1978.
Of course, that Deng was able to do all this reveals the dynamism of the CCP, compared to nearly all other communist parties which all experimented with market reforms but failed (except Vietnam which copied China 1:1).

>>17809273
>the GLF (which was Deng's and Shaoqi pet project to begin with)
wat

>>17810555
Was Gorby unaware of the size of his birthmark before going bald?