If the Soviet Union didn’t dissolve, do you think they’d be more like China nowadays, or do you think things would be the same anyway in Russia, with the only difference being they’d have a hammer and sickle flag and a politburo?

>>17815208 (OP)
Probably like a better RF

If the USSR hadn't collapsed their economy would have stagnated to levels we can't even perceive. Imagine how brilliant Western manufacturing is today but also remove the monopoly money stocks and shares making the gdp figures look presentable. They'd be African tier.

>>17815226
>collapsed

the Soviet Union didn’t collapse, it dissolved

>>17815237
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

>>17815208 (OP)
It would be like North Korea.
OR it would implode organically by commies being hanged, and then it would be like Czech Republic or something.

>>17815253
Why would it be like North Korea? NK is like 50s Soviet Union/Stalin era on steroids and the Soviet Union spent basically half its existence trying to liberalize itself, even Kruschev gave a speech about how shitty Stalin was.

>>17815259
yeah for all the faults of the USSR I do respect Khrushchev and Gorbachev for actually trying to improve human rights

>>17815271
>we should be open and transparent
t. Gorbachev
>chernobyl melts down
>Gorbechevs face when

>>17815253
The North Korea part has zero basis in reality. They spent decades up until they collapsed walking back extreme policies.

>>17815298
>collapsed
>>17815237

>>17815271
Faggot

>>17815208 (OP)
The USSR had long since spent its demographic dividend, and almost irretrievably malformed its economy.
There would be efficiencies due to keeping the economic zone together, but the thing would probably find itself in an unhappy halfway-house of economic reform.
Even within China, the Northeast, which is most similar to the USSR in its economic structure, is one of the worst-performing regions.

>>17815208 (OP)
The absolute and utter explosion of the USSR was not on anyone's radar up until like right before it happened, no one, even capable and high level intelligence agencies whose job it is to understand and predict these things, thought it would actually happen. Even after the fact the west still acts like the Russian Federation is basically a continuation of it, to a degree even the Russian Federation LARPs as such because it was just such a stunner. What this tells us about the modern world is that it exists on the flimsiest, shittiest foundations imaginable and if a titanic empire like the soviets can go under in a matter of months, there is something we really don't understand about the maintenance of civilization.

>>17815372
You're. Those two are the only two decent soviet rulers of the 20th century. Russians were so thankful to Khrustschev they gave him Sputnik for the path of truth he chose.

>>17815208 (OP)
It would be even shittier unless they somehow managed to miraculously reform the economy like Gorbachev had hoped. And even then it'd be nothing like China. China's success is due to it's export driven economy to the West since the 1990s, which the USSR could've never hoped to achieve obviously.

What if, in a different timeline, the Chinese joined the Soviet Union in the mid-2000s?

>>17815208 (OP)

Why did he loved corn so much?

>>17815689
He was ordered to eradicate hemp plantations by the US-initiated UN-mandate. He probably was told to grow the dyldos instead when he visited the US (probably secret masters of all the soviet leadership)

>>17815408
>What this tells us about the modern world is that it exists on the flimsiest, shittiest foundations imaginable and if a titanic empire like the soviets can go under in a matter of months, there is something we really don't understand about the maintenance of civilization.
this isn't true nor is it mysterious. the soviet socialist system was basically a permanent war economy where the government decided how all money is spent in the economy. then, as soon as the government experiences a crisis, the system collapses.
in other countries, the government can collapse and the country can still function because private entities continue to run the economy. because the government didn't control and run every farm every factory and every corner store.

>>17815689
because it's more productive than wheat per acre
it's basically a gigawheat head

>>17815861
While yes the soviets were on hard core central planning and war eco, that wasn't the whole reason they exploded. The reasons behind the fall are likely multifaceted and given the relatively short existence of the USSR, they will never be fully explored in historiographical examinations. This leaves us with epistemic humility, trying to explain it all away by simple shortcomings in planning or command economics is short sighted. While those no doubt contributed, they were not alone.

>>17815259
There's no reason to think the Soviet Union would ever be as poor as North Korea even if it took no steps to liberalize at all. It had abundant natural resources and a large internal market; you can make that work even with an inefficient price system and the Soviet Union did. The Russian SFSR was about as rich as Spain in 1980

>>17815208 (OP)
Why did he like corn that much?

>>17815689
>>17816097
Corn is delicious

The USSR didn't "collapse" it was purposefully dismantled through a literal fucking coup that unfolded the moment Andropov kicked the bucket.
Everything Gorbachev did was designed on purpose, to nuke the Soviet Economy (which was actually in the black and had steady growth), hand over power to the crypto-bourgeoisie that had arisen at the top of Soviet productive firms and implement Neoliberalism.
"Hit at Marxist Leninism with Lenin, hit at Lenin with Plekhanov hit at Plekhanov with Marx, hit at Marx with Social Democracy, hit at Social Democracy with Liberalism" that was the order given out of Gorbachev's circle.
Gorbachev nuked a growing economy, that had successfully started to massively improve efficiency under Andropov, to literally 30% economic collapse, pretty much immediately. Mass sabotage included just refusing ships or cargo trains to be unloaded. When workers, and local Communist party orgs tried to unload trains and ships at ports, they were attacked by Bratva and thugs of the higher levels of the Soviet firms.
USSR would have 99.5% been around today if Andropov had just lived a few years longer.

>>17816199
>to nuke the Soviet Economy (which was actually in the black and had steady growth)
You clueless nigger, we had fuck all!

>>17815208 (OP)
The Soviets weren't going to last in their current state no matter what. However, if the August coup didn't happen and Pizza Hut got to sign the New Union treaty, we might've seen a far more prosperous Russia in the modern day seeing as it would've been an actually functioning version of the modern day CSTO and CIS.

>>17816214
Yes, Gorbachev and Yakovlev nuked the entire fucking economy. Andropov's reforms had already started to see massive improvements in growth and productivity, his corruption campaigns were clearing out a lot of the dead weight.
Even by CIA assessments from the early 80s, under Andropov, the USSR probably would have reached near parity with the West come the late 1990s.

>>17816357
>Even by CIA assessments
If it's true, it only tells what clueless retards they are. I lived in the ussr since late 1970s, it was some kafkaesque horror of overall humiliating poverty. Look at my image, even the upper image is made around 1990, in Leningrad. Does it look like that country had some blooming economy on par with the first world countries?

>>17816363
>I lived in the ussr since late 1970s
So you were, like, 12 when it dissolved?

>>17816364
15. And I hated it since I was 5 or so

>>17815208 (OP)
Imo it really depends on which point you consider the soviet's demise to be "too late".
If you consider Gorbatchev to be too late, then Andropov is the last hope for the USSR. If Andropov's reforms had worked, we would've seen similar results like in China, a decentralized state-owned for profit economy but with probably a bigger focus on its population rather than a pure productive for-profit model like in China. You can actually see this in the reforms that Andropov had started : a reimplementation of Kosygin's economic model, a focus on modernisation and technocrats, stricter work rule to counter social parasitism and corruption, decentralisation etc.

If you consider Gorbatchev's as the last potential hope for the USSR, then it would've been your standard eastern-eu country : a semi-liberal conservative and nationalist country albeit with a massive size and economy. Think of current day Poland but the size of Russia (essentially Russia but more developed and with free elections).

>>17816214
He's right though. China which started with an even worse base than the USSR (Maoist china was worse than the DPRK at the time) managed to get on track with Western powers and now out compete the EU in most economic sectors.
Besides, Andropov's reforms actually addressed the problem in the Soviet model : inefficiencies, an overly centralized economy and corruption. They already had the industry, universities and white-collar workers to transition into a "modern" economy and catch up with western living standards.

>>17816382
>China ... managed to get on track with Western powers
Are you the same clueless nigger or are you his friend? China's gdp per capita is even lower than that of Russia's

>>17816388
>a country's worth is determined by ... gdp per capita
the fact that you fundamentally can't understand how a country could outcompete another without improving gdp per capita shows that you're either fundamentally misinformed or plain dumb.
Ask chatgpt in which sectors does China beat the EU for a start

>>17816393
Is it how ussr overperformed the West?
By crude oil and cast iron?
Didn't change that their citizens were dirt poor, just as chinks may only praise their supreme leaders living in houses with soil floors and eating rats for breakfast.

>>17816401
>Is it how ussr overperformed the West? By crude oil and cast iron?
Yes, the country could've overperformed the EU/USA in some key sectors by developing and modernizing their economy, albeit with some fundamental differences than like in China.
But on the other, yes, they could've also over performed or reached similar quality of life-levels of an average western country. They already had somewhat of an infrastructure, with schools, universities, jobs etc. Had they modernized and managed to develop their economy, the quality of life would've increased too.


>Didn't change that their citizens were dirt poor, just as chinks may only praise their supreme leaders living in houses with soil floors and eating rats for breakfast.
The reason why China is poor nowadays is because they were historically an africa-tier country with a complete lack of economy. It's an understatement to say that China was "poor" during Mao, it truly was something else. China nowadays has a very different vision of success than the EU or western countries, it privileges key sectors and innovation to beat other countries rather than improve their citizen's life. There's many factors as to why that is, but the main ones are that China has historically been a very large and populous country, where lives are somewhat expendable. There's simply less consideration for the ordinary chinese's life from the CCP than an EU citizen by their respective government.
This is where the USSR's model could've been fundamentally different, and why I had originally pointed out that they weren't going to lean on some productive ideal but rather an economy centered around big targets but also on satisfying their population.

tldr; had andropov's reforms worked, the ussr could've attained a modern economy level, both in certain fields aswell as quality of life.

>>17816415
> But on the other, yes, they could've also over performed or reached similar quality of life-levels of an average western country.
You are talking to a russian who lived through those times. And what you say is some insane level of asininity.
>The reason why China is poor nowadays is because they were historically an africa-tier country
Historically they used to be the wealthiest country in the world, but it gave them such hubris that they self-isolated while other world was inventing the modernity. There's no reason to search for the reason of the modern state in the past. They and russians have the same system (crypto-socialism) and are thus on the same level of mid-tier economy (which is way wealthier than the full-blown socialism, but four times poorer than the countries of normal free market economy.
Germany was in ruins in 1945, and it took them about five years to become insanely wealthy again.
If you paid to know what you tell, you should demand your money back. I know that soviet kikes left the host nation they killed to feed off the West, but ffs!

>>17816199
If their system's existence rested on whether or not one man survived it was a pretty shit one

>>17816502
>You are talking to a russian who lived through those times. And what you say is some insane level of asininity.
What even are the optics of that statement ? You literally have living proof (China) that a "crypto-socialist (?)" economy can achieve superiority in certain sectors. You also have living proof in the EU that socialist measures like nationalizing healthcare, education etc results in better living conditions. Is it really hard to believe that the Soviet Union could've addressed the systemic issues in its economy like China did while also focusing on its population ?

>Historically they used to be the wealthiest country in the world
Yes in the 1600s, not in the 20th century dumbass. Mao's china was africa-tier

>They and russians have the same system (crypto-socialism) and are thus on the same level of mid-tier economy
I don't even know what to say to that. It's amazing that you can be so confidently wrong.
Fyi, China is a state-owned & run economy for production in certain fields, while Russia is a mostly oligarchic liberal economy with few state enterprises (gazprom) to leech off natural resources.

>>17816415
>Yes, the country could've overperformed the EU/USA in some key sectors by developing and modernizing their economy
They attempted to develop and modernize their economy. They were just tremendously bad at it. They had already left the extensive phase of growth; they could not be integrated into extant global supply chains to the same extent as China; they did not have untapped economies of scale, or a high enough growth potential that massive investment could be made on the assumption of future returns. What China is doing now is the result of 50 years of reform and opening up efforts; the USSR had neither the time nor the available resources for something similar, especially as the dependency on the malformed planned sector was greater, and there wasn't really a way to scale up new sectors in new areas and use their growth/surpluses to tide over the laggards.

>>17816954
Large Russian "private" companies are effectively state owned because their owners are completely dependant on the federal government's goodwill to continue their ownership. This should achieve as good results as China without being nominally socialist which may repel foreign investors.

>>17817066
>They attempted to develop and modernize their economy
Which attempts are you referring to ? Gorbatchev's reforms were notoriously bad and only worsened the economy. But besides that, I don't see why they couldn't have fundamentally changed their economy. The Kosygin reforms had yielded good results in the 60s and attempts to re implement them under Andropov could've worked. Similarly, the decision to be more efficient and step away from the quota-culture in workplaces could've increased the economical output and quality.

>>17817089
State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China's market capitalization. Their entire economic model for innovation is built around the idea of state-directed enterprises competing with one another.

>>17816954
>superiority in certain sectors
Doesn't build a great economy. Free market does.
(as some rich dude told, science and education build great economy, but if it was the only condition, then soviet union would be the reachest country, but it obviously wasn't the case. The free market is another necessary condition for prosperity"
(little did he know that russian education was shit as well, but he was correct in principle: free market in education sphere would straighten up the queer russian education as well, and most of problems of academia would be solved if we had a good alternative to it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrWiP23Tlwk