The USSR was not self-sufficient for starters, and again, it failed.Because of its own problems. And I’m not making anything up, you’re the one putting massive amounts of spin on things.
Chinese people often call it “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” You don’t wanna call it like that, that’s fine, it’s just terminology. The point is that it’s a fundamentally different economic and political system, and I think it’s measurably better than the west in many metrics. If you agree, then you probably agree that we should pursue a similar system, whether you decide to call it communist or not?
Yes, I would agree, and I don’t see why you seem to think otherwise. I already stated that given a choice between a functional capitalist society and a functioning socialist society I would choose and encourage others to pick the socialist one. You have very little going for you in this debate, and as a result you seem to be increasingly capitulating towards making me into something I’m not in order to cope.
Right now, China is in a good spot, and it also has the benefit of an absolutely massive population. If they can get 1.4 billion people organized, stabilized, and working together they will be an absolute force to be reckoned with, of which only India could compete (though they suck at getting their shit together, currently.) However, since Deng Xiaoping, China has increasingly embraced tactics from other political ideologies to suit the present needs and find what works. If anything, I would say the way China allows its government to evolve while keeping retraints on it is its strength. Also their soft power strategy, but that’s not a topic for now.
The USSR was from the start banned from international trade for the sin of being communist, only after WW2 did world markets open to it. Even then, it didn’t rely on any country for its energetic, food, material, or industrial needs. You can read about this on Robert C. Allen’s “Farm to Factory” or Alec Nove’s “An economic history of the USSR”. I’m not making things up, this is widely known.
No comment on the China thing. But if that’s the model that works, you should seek to establish a Communist Party rule in your country.
The USSR was not self-sufficient for starters, and again, it failed. Because of its own problems. And I’m not making anything up, you’re the one putting massive amounts of spin on things.
Yes, I would agree, and I don’t see why you seem to think otherwise. I already stated that given a choice between a functional capitalist society and a functioning socialist society I would choose and encourage others to pick the socialist one. You have very little going for you in this debate, and as a result you seem to be increasingly capitulating towards making me into something I’m not in order to cope.
Right now, China is in a good spot, and it also has the benefit of an absolutely massive population. If they can get 1.4 billion people organized, stabilized, and working together they will be an absolute force to be reckoned with, of which only India could compete (though they suck at getting their shit together, currently.) However, since Deng Xiaoping, China has increasingly embraced tactics from other political ideologies to suit the present needs and find what works. If anything, I would say the way China allows its government to evolve while keeping retraints on it is its strength. Also their soft power strategy, but that’s not a topic for now.
The USSR was from the start banned from international trade for the sin of being communist, only after WW2 did world markets open to it. Even then, it didn’t rely on any country for its energetic, food, material, or industrial needs. You can read about this on Robert C. Allen’s “Farm to Factory” or Alec Nove’s “An economic history of the USSR”. I’m not making things up, this is widely known.
No comment on the China thing. But if that’s the model that works, you should seek to establish a Communist Party rule in your country.