Thread 18153394

>USSR turns into market economy
>unprecedented poverty and political collapse

>China turns into market economy
>unprecedented prosperity and global superpower

What made all the difference, bros?

>>18153394 (OP)
Gorbachev gave them the freedom to point out problems in the system without censorship, but didn’t allow them to actually fix the problem.
Deng actually allowed them to fix the problem by embracing capitalism, but didn’t allow dissent

>>18153394 (OP)
It was a market economy yet not fully integrated into world markets.

the ussr changed their economic model overnight and went from top to bottom (reform large companies first).

china did it gradually and went from bottom to top (reform small companies first).

The USSR's transition to a market economy was an effect of their collapse.

China's transition to a market economy was deliberate.

>>18153433
Who's them retard?

>>18153394 (OP)
NUMBER 11 CRASH AND BURN
CHINKS ON SUICIDE WATCH
http://www.google.com/search?q=china+collapse

>>18153624
Stop the slander. China is no collapse. Under the glorious leadership of Xi Jinping, the CPC is firmly leading the people of China to make great achievements in the great journey of socialism with Chinese characteristics. I hope that both of us will work together to promote the development of bilateral relations and global stability.

>>18153630
YELLOW PERIL

>>18153394 (OP)
China had a billion plebs to make cheap goods as the west trqnsitioned into service economies

China did have a post-communist crisis in its big cities and in the Northeast. But most of China effectively didn't have an economy to plan in the first place so the overall effect of eliminating planning was modest compared to the USSR which had a Southern European level of output under socialism

>>18153394 (OP)
>What made all the difference, bros?
Dengism was measured reforms to increase economic activity without surrendering the Communist Party's control over the state
perestroika was total sabotage of the state's ability to exist engineered by disgruntled wannabe bourgeois intellectuals

>>18153394 (OP)
>What made all the difference, bros?
Their massive population. China's economic output relative to its population is terrible. Its Per Capita GDP is below the global average
>Duuuh that number don matter!
It does if we're discussing the key differences between the USSR and China my friends.

>>18153394 (OP)
Good thing we have nukes

>>18153394 (OP)
>>unprecedented prosperity
...
>and global superpower
China is still considered a rising power, currently the only country considered a Superpower is the United States, I don't exactly know what the criteria is, but I think it's largely the consensus that China's economy is still largely dependent on the United States, and we see their economy suffered quite a bit under recent tariffs which forced their Commerce Ministry to suspend a ban on exports of certain metals to the United States as an example

>>18153818
>I think it's largely the consensus that China's economy is still largely dependent on the United States
It's lessened a lot. Major factor to this was them growing into new developing markets that American and most western states have ignored and gaining major leverage off the fumbles of various other states that have kneecapped their industrial or market prowess and potential like the US and Germany.

They can lack the experiance of being the "first-mover" though and that will take time before we can call it a solid top power. Probably 15 years. Full on the premier power would be several decades more and even then we'd have to jump a century and look back in retrospect to see if that was the case.

>>18153394 (OP)
USSR affirmed its internationalist mission and continued to fund armed struggle. China realized that the lumpenprole exist in every fabric of every society. So they instead opted to take advantage of western (namely American) liberal greed and become a lead outsourcing country for everything from manufacturing to agriculture. This has turned the US (and increasingly, Europe) into services economies that serve no purpose.
The US has always been reluctant to affirm its loyalties to the Western world and is now completely gutting all of its military presence in Europe and taking more measures to abandon the EU. They have been taking neutral political stances on world issues ever since the Bay of Pigs invasion. In addition, they are taking clandestine measures to lower their birth rates and increase immigration control while expanding its AI infrastructure so that the country can more readily transition into a technocrat nanny state.

>>18153981
>for everything from manufacturing to agriculture.
China is a net importer of food

>>18153952
>major leverage off the fumbles of various other states that have kneecapped their industrial or market prowess and potential like the US and Germany.
China's industry is kneecapped by needing to maintain a comparative advantage on a global market. Their GDP growth has been limited by the low value of their product as they need to justify being an outsource machine to the west. The thing is that if China disappeared tomorrow, the west would just become the new China, what I mean by this is that lower output would lead to more expensive domestic manufacturing and higher wages to match, leading to a lower per capita GDP but a higher purchasing power. I think a best-case scenario for China is just a multipolar world, because at best you're just asking for China and the US to swap places.

>>18153394 (OP)
Russia was the largest white country that can't be allowed to exist as an alternative so was destroyed.

China is a yellow bug race that no one would ever follow, so the entirety of the west deindustrialized and put all their factories and jobs into China as a fuck you to western whites.

Thus ensuring whites will never have true power and security ever again.

>>18153995
Lots of countries are. That doesn't say anything about their agricultural output.
>>18154005
>The thing is that if China disappeared tomorrow, the west would just become the new China
Wrong.
American consumers and retailers would not have consistent sources for products with a predictable, time tested logistics and manufacturing process. This is the thing about the United States, the American consumer ONLY buys Chinese products. Entreprenuers outside of China can't find success making anything. The auto plants in Mexico and other parts of Mesoamerica are on their last legs now that domestic American brands are failing to sell. The olny countries that are stable down there have agricultural economies and will remain so for a long, long time.
It's actually funny, if the United States of America were to disappear tomorrow, there would be better variety in the global market because American distributors would not have absolute say in which products are sold. American parasitic protectionist would cease to exist. There would actually be higher quality products at better prices. Did you never take an economics class?

>>18154315
>loaded language loaded language loaded language "Did you never take an economics class?"
I will no longer be replying to you as it's obvious you are a tankie and a sinophile that is not capable of seeing reality or having a level headed discussion. You also likely started this thread and will continue necrobumping it. You will take me no longer wishing to kick your goalpost down the road as a "win". Goodbye

>>18154366
So I'm not a Chinese Indian Mexican Muslim anymore? That's usually how your script goes. Interesting
This is not my thread but every time a thread like this pops up, you samefag and constantly make the same implications. Either that "fascism = national socialism = socialism", or that China is somehow hardcapped in it's growth when it's climbing per capita charts across the board.
I would hope that you avoid me and avoid bumping these threads. You don't offer anything for the discussion. Kind of like how your country doesn't offer anything to the world.

>>18154376
You're a schizo, I'm not the boogeyman living in your head that you think I am and I genuinely don't know what the fuck you're talking about but now I can at least see that you're not even a tankie, you're just retarded (same thing arguably)

>>18154383
So I'm not even a tankie anymore. Very interesting. You're doing an excellent job refusing to reply to me.
Since you're back, go ahead and explain how the US will use all the political power it has saved up to move factories from T'Chyna to the country of Europe or however you imagined this scenario would play out in your HOI4 campaign. Then explain how the stock market won't implode once Chinese goods are down during the 10 years the country needs minimum to rebuild its industrial base.

>>18153995
Nearly every country is lmao. You think people want tk be super restricted to "locally grown" options. Even the US imports most of its food because it gets more out of exporting cash crops or things like nuts.

>>18153394 (OP)
No one was interested in outsourcing manufacturing to russia

>>18154396
>Even the US imports most of its food
...

>>18154005
>higher wages to match
>In 2025 with the sheer amount of labour right set backs and unions being dead in many parts of the country and apprenticeships having equal to or worse than methods fast food jobs.
Really? Also China being able to do design and manufacturing within the same location or with minimal travel is a huge cost reduction whoch gives them a major comparative advantage over companies that have to do design/blueprints (or ripping off pre-made designs) and then having to hook up with a factory in China to do production and testing/QC

>>18154407
China largely imports most of its material for manufacturing from Russia and Africa, so it's hardly wholly independent in this regard
>Really?
Yes really, higher wages will be required to offset the relatively higher cost of domestic products, resulting in the USD lowering in value similar to the Yuan. It's like I said, in a best case scenario China and the US just switch places. Or in other words, if China wants a higher standard of living they'll need to become a service economy, and if the US wants higher domestic manufacturing output it would need to forgo its standard of living and stop being a service economy.

>>18154418
>China largely imports most of its material for manufacturing from Russia and Africa
China sources pretty much all of its critical minerals internally. Their African sources are super exaggerated and Russia basically sells cheap because no one wants to buy from them (openly).

>>18154423
>China sources pretty much all of its critical minerals internally.
Evidently they don't
>and Russia basically sells cheap
Evidently they don't because of the high value placed on them

>>18154428
>Evidently they don't
Have you not read the news? The fact that a ton of their internal mining covers a huge chunk of it is a major reason why the US it try to bum rush the Lobito corridor from scratch and the EU is throwing pennies at some projects

>>18154437
>"China sources their minerals domestically"
>Source?
>"The US is taking initiatives to counter their mining operations in Africa"
????

>>18154441
Samarium for military sector use cases are pretty much cornered by China completely. Not because it has total ownership of every possible source but because it spent yeara building up it's capacity to mine it and do processing and refinement from the top down in a vertical monopoly. It's like the only state that does the actual procc+refine part at all.

Basically it's not that the China "won" in a contest of blows not even close but that other states were operating off a weird sense of entitlement and not actually checking basic stuff.

>>18154465
Like a fat chunk of the rare earth mineral cohort isn't called that becauae it's "rare" but rather because very few either mine it or actually process it into something useful.

>>18153394 (OP)

USSR was America's enemy.
China was America's ally against USSR.

>>18153394 (OP)
Neoauthoritarianism

>>18153818
>which forced their Commerce Ministry to suspend a ban on exports of certain metals to the United States as an example
They're still going ahead with that i think
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-devises-plan-keep-us-military-getting-its-rare-earth-magnets-wsj-reports-2025-11-11/

>>18153772
yes, the transition to a market economy weakened the industrial interior (northeast, Hebei, Shanxi, Shaanxi) and led to poverty and deprivation there.
Meanwhile in coastal SEZs and new free trade zones it created wealthy and prosperous new cities (Shenzhen etc) that now make Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Guangdong the richest provinces in the country.

It's important to note that China's market reforms and opening up was a very gradual process that started in the mid 70s and didn't end until their WTO membership in 2001. It slowed down after the Tiananmen protests in 89 but the Chinese economy at that time was still very different from today, it had strict price controls and many jobs like doctors and scientists hadn't yet been integrated into the market system.

The USSR in contrast
>shock therapy that didn't give markets time to adapt
>mass sell-off to oligarchs that destroyed manufacturing base
>labour not competitive on the global stage, international trade relies on raw materials

some of the reasons that the USSR's reforms failed were due to the reforms but most were due to the USSR's situation itself