Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole.
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
“Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism.”
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a “Russian fatalist” instead, that would be more correct… )))
I’m not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don’t want to seem toxic.
““true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism.”
You’re so hung up on that word, Comrade… Can’t I express myself figuratively?.. )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce… But that’s putting it mildly, Comrade!
“Whoever doesn’t regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain.”
V.V. Putin
“As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.”
How much longer, Comrade? They’ve been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I’m reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he’s writing… literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month… I read this, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God’s help… let’s say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?.. ))) It’s Rockefeller.
Don’t you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn’t have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy.
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
As for your repeated belittlement of me as a “western Marxist,” I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you’ve continued to do so
I sincerely apologize! I didn’t know it would offend you! I’m serious.
But, frankly, I’m very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists “Comrade.” I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some… socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought.
Once again, I’m sorry, I won’t call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don’t believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union’s conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia’s ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union’s models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia’s conditions are not the same as the USSR’s.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China’s case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for “western Marxism,” in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world.
You know I disagree… )))
What’s wrong with Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don’t you think Mao’s thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin’s “Great Leap Forward” is much more impressive than the “Great Leap Forward”… I’ll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959)
Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968)
Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975)
From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988)
Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993)
Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003)
Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013)
Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
“snake Khrushchev”
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn’t that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin’s artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev’s second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can’t shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called “Khrushchev-era buildings,” began.
So what if they made a deal with the western devil?
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
The soviets did so too during the NEP
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn’t have capitalism at that time, just like China didn’t. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy.
But Stalin, at some point, said “Stop!” And he didn’t do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don’t forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more.
I’ve described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
“Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country.”
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng’s advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin’s artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the “soul” being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
One does not seek good when one already has it.
I am referring to Stalin’s decision to abolish the NEP, viewing it as a poison for a socialist society.
When the NEP first emerged, the common people were starving—literally swelling up from hunger—while the “NEPmen” sat in restaurants, feasting on black caviar and washing it down with Abrau-Durso champagne.
The people loathed the NEPmen; they regarded them as a hostile class.
Do you understand that the NEP represents an abyss between private enterprise and the people—both in a social and a material sense? As a temporary measure, the NEP is, of course, necessary in certain specific situations; however, if allowed to drag on, things can go so far that there is simply no turning back.
That Platoskin fellow I mentioned yesterday—well, in the wake of Putin’s crackdown, he’s had a change of heart about staging a revolution… ))) Now he wants to do everything legally, through the electoral process. Furthermore, under his proposed model of socialism, he intends to retain private business ownership. It would certainly be fascinating to see how he manages to pull that off…
“Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth.”
A real roller coaster… )))
It seems to me that the biggest disaster was when Mao had all the sparrows killed off.
In case you didn’t know—and whatever a snake Khrushchev might have been—he actually sent trainloads of sparrows to China once Mao realized that he had been a bit too hasty in getting rid of them.
Mao wanted war constantly. He was forever pushing the countries of the Socialist Bloc toward it. Castro and Czechoslovakia were the most outraged by this. Mao was extremely belligerent; he was constantly provoking the USSR.
It was strange to observe: on one hand, there was the practically boundless aid being provided to China, yet on the other—manifestations of outright hostility.
In the USSR during the 1970s, China was portrayed in a rather unfavorable light on television—specifically in the wake of the Damansky Island conflict and other events. Brezhnev feared that China might launch a nuclear strike. All forces were placed on combat alert, and troops were massed along the borders. Thank God, the situation was ultimately resolved peacefully. It was at Damansky Island that the BM-21 “Grad” multiple rocket launch systems were deployed for the first time—a move that, in fact, played the decisive role.
And take a look at the graph: leading up to the Damansky Island incident, China was at its peak; immediately afterward, however, it went into a sharp nosedive.
“they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought.”
Everything produced in the 1930s and thereafter was a copy of Western designs. Why bother developing original technology? They simply bought the product in the West and copied it.
Incidentally, there is a story relevant to this point: Khrushchev once went to Sweden on a state visit, where he saw an electric shaver for the first time—and was presented with one as a gift. He was utterly astonished and took a real liking to it. As soon as he returned to the USSR, he ordered that an identical one be manufactured—only domestically produced. His staff asked him, “How?” He replied, “However you see fit!”
The engineers dismantled the device down to the last screw, copied it, and thus the first electric shaver in the USSR was born at the FED factory. This factory holds a special place in my heart; it adjoins the aircraft plant where my mother used to work.
FED is an acronym standing for Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky.
Now, regarding “socialism with a Russian twist”: on one occasion, Lenin ordered Dzerzhinsky to put an end to the problem of homelessness among children. Dzerzhinsky was a monumental figure; he was entrusted with the most complex and daunting tasks (Beria, in essence, was much the same).
Dzerzhinsky traveled to Kharkiv, rounded up all the homeless children… took them out to a ravine, and had them shot! …)))) That’s just a joke, of course…
In reality, the first labor colony for homeless children in the USSR was established. A precision electronics factory was built on the grounds of this colony, where the homeless children both worked and studied. Ultimately, the people who emerged from that institution went on to become scientists and cosmonauts… Since then, the factory has borne the name FED—though it has now been bombed by the Russians. However, had the Ukrainians realized what the acronym FED actually stood for, they would have renamed the factory long ago…))))
As for the goods that were supposedly meant to “displace” Western products in the global market: under socialism, there is no such thing as competition—there is only “socialist emulation.” Goods manufactured in the USSR could be seen en masse throughout the countries of the Socialist Bloc. They should have first ensured they had everything they needed themselves—so that, perhaps, they could compete later on.
I do not care for the “soul”
That is what sets you apart from a Russian. It sounds stupid, but it’s true.
His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
Note that in both the first and the second case, it all began with contact with the United States. Leprosy—if one may put it that way.
Note that in both the first and second instances, it all began with contact with the United States—a sort of leprosy, if you will.
Those reforms were dictated by the West—roughly speaking. The U.S. led both men by the nose… and subsequently began leading Putin by the nose as well. Sooner or later, this had to come to an end—yet it hasn’t. Now we have the “Spirit of Anchorage” all over again; it is truly laughable to watch.
The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas.
As for Mao’s economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao’s economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping’s reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You’ll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced.
I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev’s venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn’t permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there’s good reason why Khrushchev’s actions enabled Gorbachev’s, which enabled Yeltsin’s.
Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world’s factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you’re already manufacturing.
All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China’s trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath.
Khrushchev’s venom was correctly called out by Mao.
Like you, I also detest Khrushchev; however, as far as China is concerned, Khrushchev did nothing detrimental—in fact, he continued Stalin’s foreign policy course regarding that country.
And here is something that might surprise you: Stalin and Mao never actually shared a warm relationship. Stalin used to refer to Mao as a “radish”—red on the outside (a communist), but white on the inside (a capitalist).
but there’s good reason why Khrushchev’s actions enabled Gorbachev’s, which enabled Yeltsin’s.
Yes, I completely agree with you here. Stalin’s death was the beginning of the end for the USSR.
Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world’s factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further.
Once again, Comrade: The factories where this “copying” took place were built using Western capital. The Western owners were undoubtedly keen to ensure those factories generated a profit, so they dispatched their own specialists to help their Chinese comrades master the technologies more quickly; equipment and machinery were provided as well.
There is no miracle here, Comrade. I played football as a child, and back then, the Germans built an Adidas factory in Moscow. I used to buy Moscow-made Adidas boots; they were indistinguishable from the originals—except that they cost several times less.
Just imagine: if there had been thousands of such factories—as there are in China—what would have happened then? Moscow-made Adidas would have completely displaced German Adidas. Does that not remind you of anything?
The only catch is that, in the USSR, you could count the number of Western-built factories on the fingers of one hand…
As for the idea of simply copying something without developing it further… Have you heard about the Korean War, where American pilots suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Soviet airmen? The ratio was something like one to ten—I don’t recall the exact figures.
The whole secret lies in the fact that the aircraft flown by the Soviet pilots were copies of American designs—except that, in their version, the Russians altered the wing angle. And the Russians won.
All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be.
Comrade, I feel a certain sense of embarrassment before you. This is the first time I have ever heard an American speak like this.
I am pleased to hear that. When I detect a certain note of regret… I truly hope it is sincere!
What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath.
You can see that a cornered beast will fight to the bitter end! A cornered beast is capable of anything!
Comrade, it is one thing to merely observe, but quite another to be right in the epicenter. I am watching Russia—quite literally—through a pair of naval binoculars.
If I were to set up a drum, grab a spyglass, put on a tricorn hat, and perch myself on that drum—well, I could easily pass for Napoleon… )))
For those of us here, all these death throes… they reverberate back to us later with excruciating pain. Just now, Ukraine struck a dormitory; many teenagers were killed. And the retaliation will come flying back—right down onto our heads…
I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China’s Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China’s socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that’s why the birdcage is closing.
As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself.
I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China’s Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west.
I understand everything you’re saying, but that’s not what I’m getting at. If the USSR had received the same level of Western investment back then—the kind that was poured into China—it wouldn’t have been any worse off; in fact, to be more precise, the USSR would have absolutely skyrocketed.
As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America.
I am more concerned about European globalists right now—because I am not from Iran, but from Kharkiv.
And those scumbags are constantly provoking… harder and harder.
The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable
Yes, the NEP was likely necessary—it was not without reason that Lenin introduced it. The peasantry had begun to resent the prodrazvyorstka (grain requisitioning system), and peasant uprisings flared up in several regions; Lenin introduced the NEP out of necessity—in part, to pacify the peasants.
However, Stalin did not abolish the NEP immediately; the policy remained in place—albeit under duress—for another four years.
Joseph Stalin viewed the New Economic Policy (NEP) not as a means of building socialism, but rather as a forced, temporary retreat designed to save Soviet power from economic ruin.
He criticized it for fostering a resurgence of capitalist elements, posing a threat of the countryside undergoing a “kulak”-driven regression, and being fundamentally incompatible with a planned economy.
Key points of Stalin’s critique of the NEP:
Resurgence of Capitalism:
Stalin argued that the NEP legalized private entrepreneurs (“NEPmen”) and stimulated the growth of the kulak class, leading to social stratification that worked to the detriment of the proletariat.
Constraints on Industrialization:
Small-scale private enterprise was incapable of providing the country with the heavy industry and advanced technology required for national defense.
The Threat of Socialist Failure:
In a speech delivered at a conference of Marxist historians (1929), he stated explicitly:
“If we adhere to the NEP, it is because it serves the cause of socialism. But when it ceases to serve that cause… we will cast it to hell.”
As for Mao’s economy, it was again rapid industrialization.
I highly value Mao’s achievements in unifying China—that is, indeed, an invaluable accomplishment.
However, it seems to me that as a politician, economist, and strategist, Mao was rather lackluster… perhaps because he was a romantic and an idealist.
And what, exactly, were his economic achievements? Mao compelled every peasant to build a furnace on their own property and cast low-quality pig iron. This is precisely what Stalin had refused to do: hand over heavy industry to small-scale cooperatives. Mao sought to boost pig iron and steel production tenfold within a decade using this method—relying on the peasants and the furnaces in their backyards. Do you consider that a sound strategic move?
The fanatical campaign to exterminate sparrows was merely a way to identify a concrete “enemy”—something to blame for poor harvests—rather than acknowledging the leadership’s own miscalculations.
The conflict with the USSR was a tactic to divert the public’s attention from the country’s true problems by designating an external enemy. At that time, China was engaged in a full-blown campaign to discredit the Soviet Union. They were plastering up all sorts of leaflets… it strikes me as very bizarre.
Meanwhile, in the USSR, the newspapers were describing China as—and you might be surprised to hear this—a “militarist” state.
Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent. Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.
As for the Sino-Soviet split, it’s a tragedy, and was avoidable.
Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.
There are many contradictions in your post, Comrade.
How could the USSR have achieved what China did—with the aid of Western assistance—if such Western aid was a priori ruled out, given that, in U.S. state strategy, the USSR was designated as Enemy No. 1?
And once again, you are pushing your central thesis: that China succeeded because it rectified the mistakes made by the USSR…
Don’t you find that we are just going around in circles?
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent.
You probably meant to say that industrialization was a complete failure and morphed into the “Cultural Revolution.” It seems to me that it was a gesture of desperation.
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped.
Should I laugh or cry, comrade?.. ))))
Key Milestones in Soviet-Chinese Nuclear Cooperation (1950–1958): Research Reactor and Cyclotron: On September 27, 1958, at the Institute of Atomic Energy in Beijing—with the assistance of the USSR—China’s first experimental heavy-water reactor and cyclotron were commissioned.
Do you believe that agronomy is more complex?
The Russians trained 10,000 Chinese specialists in nuclear energy. It was thanks to the USSR that China acquired nuclear weapons.
Mao really should have asked the Russians; the Soviets are quite nimble when it comes to catching sparrows… )))
Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.
I fully agree with you on this point—except regarding the economic aspect: Mao laid the foundations of a rock-solid party system that remains standing to this day. He also unified China.
As for his aspirations for China’s development, however, his actions strike me as chaotic—almost as if he had conceived of something grandiose but didn’t know where to begin.
At heart, he was a revolutionary, not a statesman. There were a great many such figures in the USSR during the 1930s—people who simply could not adapt to peacetime life.
I understand you, Comrade, you consider me a subjective idealist.
)))
“Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism.”
V.I. Lenin.
Call me a “Russian fatalist” instead, that would be more correct… )))
I’m not going to talk about the workers; I have my own opinion on the matter, and idealism has nothing to do with it.
I see how irritating it is for everyone here, and I don’t want to seem toxic.
““true” socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is “false” socialism.”
You’re so hung up on that word, Comrade… Can’t I express myself figuratively?.. )))
OK, not true socialism, but the most perfect model of socialism at the present time, which, to my deepest regret, is now considered subjective idealism to reproduce… But that’s putting it mildly, Comrade!
“Whoever doesn’t regret the collapse of the USSR has no heart. And whoever wants to restore it to its former form has no brain.”
V.V. Putin
“As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China’s social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people.”
How much longer, Comrade? They’ve been building this for 50 years, since the days of Nixon and Kissinger.
I’m reading our Chinese comrade right now, and he’s writing… literally: you can live in a Chinese village on 50 yuan a month… I read this, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
"For all of the soviet union’s incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. "
So what if China developed with Western money? And the USSR developed in the 1930s, with God’s help… let’s say.
Comparisons are unfair, I think.
Besides, have you heard about the Kissinger Triangle? All that money was used to pull China away from the USSR.
Did you know that Deng was invited to the Langley Command Center? Few people were invited there. Together with the US, China built stations on its border with the USSR to monitor Soviet military installations.
By the way, did you see Deng fly to the US in 1979? He was greeted like Gorbachev; it made me smile.
Khrushchev was the first leader of the USSR to visit the United States.
Who do you think is in the photo?.. ))) It’s Rockefeller.
Don’t you think Khrushchev wanted to pull off the same thing as Deng Xiaoping? After he betrayed Stalin, who was deeply disliked and feared in the West.
But Khrushchev wouldn’t have succeeded a priori. The US would never have allowed the US to develop! Never!!!
Do you know why?
Because socialism in the USSR was idealistically subjective!! If the West dreams of such socialism at night, it wakes up in a cold sweat and screams in fear! Until now!!!
I wish China the very best on its path to development!
The main thing is to stay on track!
I sincerely apologize! I didn’t know it would offend you! I’m serious.
But, frankly, I’m very pleased with your reaction.
If a Westerner had told me something like that ten years ago, I wouldn’t have believed them! Especially when it came to Lenin.
" standard Trotskyism"
Yes, but Trotsky was for the NEP, and Stalin was against it. He believed that the NEP was poisoning Soviet society and abolished it. Perhaps, if not for Stalin, the USSR would have gone the way of China.
"This is no way to act towards someone you’ve been calling “comrade.” "
I call all socialists “Comrade.” I was recently removed from Reddit. There, I met some… socialists. We argued for a long time, just like you and me, about the same things. In the end, we agreed not to talk about China and remained Comrades, keeping our opinions.
Once again, I’m sorry, I won’t call you that anymore.
To be clear, I don’t believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.
As for the progress in China, it’s already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.
The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union’s conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia’s ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union’s models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia’s conditions are not the same as the USSR’s.
As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China’s case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.
As for “western Marxism,” in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.
You know I disagree… )))
What’s wrong with Stalin’s industrialization in the 1930s? Which Mao wanted to replicate with abandon. Don’t you think Mao’s thinking back then, ardently, is similar to mine now? That is, Mao wanted to build the USSR in China.
I think Stalin’s “Great Leap Forward” is much more impressive than the “Great Leap Forward”… I’ll Google it now.
Mao Zedong (September 27, 1954 – April 27, 1959) Liu Shaoqi (April 27, 1959 – October 31, 1968) Dong Biwu (Acting Chairman from October 31, 1968 – January 17, 1975) From 1975 to 1982, the position was abolished, and the functions of head of state were performed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Li Xiannian (June 18, 1983 – April 8, 1988) Yang Shangkun (April 8, 1988 – March 27, 1993) Jiang Zemin (March 27, 1993 – March 15, 2003) Hu Jintao (March 15, 2003 – March 14, 2013) Xi Jinping (March 14, 2013 to present)
In ten years, Stalin transformed a largely agrarian country into a power capable of fighting the EU on equal terms, single-handedly, and ultimately bringing them to their knees.
Comrade, honestly, how can you even compare these two?
“snake Khrushchev”
Yes, he discredited Stalin, to the delight of the West, but he did so for careerist and ambitious reasons. But he was a hardened and devoted Soviet communist. It wasn’t that he wanted the New Economic Policy (NEP)—on the contrary, he abolished the last bastion of private enterprise in the USSR. He abolished Stalin’s artels, a grave mistake when light industry slumped, followed by shortages, and, as a consequence, the trade mafia emerged. Khrushchev should have developed the artels, not stifled them. Khrushchev’s second mistake was becoming hooked on oil, a habit Russia still can’t shake.
But he cared about the people; under him, the process of mass construction of free housing for the proletariat, the so-called “Khrushchev-era buildings,” began.
The main thing is that the soul remains untouched.
Capitalism is a transitional stage from feudalism to socialism. Russia didn’t have capitalism at that time, just like China didn’t. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was improvised capitalism. It was necessary because the country was on the brink of survival. And it really boosted the economy. But Stalin, at some point, said “Stop!” And he didn’t do it without reason. Industrialization requires a huge amount of resources and labor. The NEP is a bunch of small businessmen. Who will build these factories under the NEP? Who will organize this construction? 80% of the population are peasants, who will certainly remain on the land, will plow the land, and sell their harvest as private farmers. How can they be lured to the city? No one raped the peasants back then; they could easily run away. How can we offer them better conditions than if they remained in the villages? Tens of millions need to be resettled. Don’t forget that industrialization was carried out by peasants with their own hands, as was the case in China.
I’ve described the main points above.
To develop light industry, Stalin organized artels.
Note:
“Under I.V. Stalin, artels (production cooperatives) in the USSR were a vital part of the economy. They produced over 30,000 different products, supplying the market with essential goods—from food to electronics. By 1953, artels produced approximately 40% of all furniture and 35% of knitwear in the country.”
No problem, Comrade! Joseph Vissarionovich has thought of everything!
Products of the artel
During the war
Everyone in the cooperative has equal rights and receives the same salary. The director is elected annually from among the cooperative members, by the cooperative itself.
The team is small, 10 people…
I didn’t know this, I said the phrase on my own.
Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.
Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng’s advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.
While Stalin’s artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the “soul” being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.
As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev’s reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.
One does not seek good when one already has it.
I am referring to Stalin’s decision to abolish the NEP, viewing it as a poison for a socialist society.
When the NEP first emerged, the common people were starving—literally swelling up from hunger—while the “NEPmen” sat in restaurants, feasting on black caviar and washing it down with Abrau-Durso champagne.
The people loathed the NEPmen; they regarded them as a hostile class.
Do you understand that the NEP represents an abyss between private enterprise and the people—both in a social and a material sense? As a temporary measure, the NEP is, of course, necessary in certain specific situations; however, if allowed to drag on, things can go so far that there is simply no turning back.
That Platoskin fellow I mentioned yesterday—well, in the wake of Putin’s crackdown, he’s had a change of heart about staging a revolution… ))) Now he wants to do everything legally, through the electoral process. Furthermore, under his proposed model of socialism, he intends to retain private business ownership. It would certainly be fascinating to see how he manages to pull that off…
“Mao’s economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth.”
A real roller coaster… )))
It seems to me that the biggest disaster was when Mao had all the sparrows killed off.
In case you didn’t know—and whatever a snake Khrushchev might have been—he actually sent trainloads of sparrows to China once Mao realized that he had been a bit too hasty in getting rid of them.
Mao wanted war constantly. He was forever pushing the countries of the Socialist Bloc toward it. Castro and Czechoslovakia were the most outraged by this. Mao was extremely belligerent; he was constantly provoking the USSR.
It was strange to observe: on one hand, there was the practically boundless aid being provided to China, yet on the other—manifestations of outright hostility.
In the USSR during the 1970s, China was portrayed in a rather unfavorable light on television—specifically in the wake of the Damansky Island conflict and other events. Brezhnev feared that China might launch a nuclear strike. All forces were placed on combat alert, and troops were massed along the borders. Thank God, the situation was ultimately resolved peacefully. It was at Damansky Island that the BM-21 “Grad” multiple rocket launch systems were deployed for the first time—a move that, in fact, played the decisive role.
And take a look at the graph: leading up to the Damansky Island incident, China was at its peak; immediately afterward, however, it went into a sharp nosedive.
“they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought.”
Everything produced in the 1930s and thereafter was a copy of Western designs. Why bother developing original technology? They simply bought the product in the West and copied it.
Incidentally, there is a story relevant to this point: Khrushchev once went to Sweden on a state visit, where he saw an electric shaver for the first time—and was presented with one as a gift. He was utterly astonished and took a real liking to it. As soon as he returned to the USSR, he ordered that an identical one be manufactured—only domestically produced. His staff asked him, “How?” He replied, “However you see fit!”
The engineers dismantled the device down to the last screw, copied it, and thus the first electric shaver in the USSR was born at the FED factory. This factory holds a special place in my heart; it adjoins the aircraft plant where my mother used to work.
FED is an acronym standing for Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky.
Now, regarding “socialism with a Russian twist”: on one occasion, Lenin ordered Dzerzhinsky to put an end to the problem of homelessness among children. Dzerzhinsky was a monumental figure; he was entrusted with the most complex and daunting tasks (Beria, in essence, was much the same).
Dzerzhinsky traveled to Kharkiv, rounded up all the homeless children… took them out to a ravine, and had them shot! …)))) That’s just a joke, of course…
In reality, the first labor colony for homeless children in the USSR was established. A precision electronics factory was built on the grounds of this colony, where the homeless children both worked and studied. Ultimately, the people who emerged from that institution went on to become scientists and cosmonauts… Since then, the factory has borne the name FED—though it has now been bombed by the Russians. However, had the Ukrainians realized what the acronym FED actually stood for, they would have renamed the factory long ago…))))
As for the goods that were supposedly meant to “displace” Western products in the global market: under socialism, there is no such thing as competition—there is only “socialist emulation.” Goods manufactured in the USSR could be seen en masse throughout the countries of the Socialist Bloc. They should have first ensured they had everything they needed themselves—so that, perhaps, they could compete later on.
That is what sets you apart from a Russian. It sounds stupid, but it’s true.
Note that in both the first and the second case, it all began with contact with the United States. Leprosy—if one may put it that way.
Note that in both the first and second instances, it all began with contact with the United States—a sort of leprosy, if you will.
Those reforms were dictated by the West—roughly speaking. The U.S. led both men by the nose… and subsequently began leading Putin by the nose as well. Sooner or later, this had to come to an end—yet it hasn’t. Now we have the “Spirit of Anchorage” all over again; it is truly laughable to watch.
The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas.
As for Mao’s economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao’s economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping’s reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You’ll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced.
I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev’s venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn’t permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there’s good reason why Khrushchev’s actions enabled Gorbachev’s, which enabled Yeltsin’s.
Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world’s factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you’re already manufacturing.
All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China’s trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath.
Like you, I also detest Khrushchev; however, as far as China is concerned, Khrushchev did nothing detrimental—in fact, he continued Stalin’s foreign policy course regarding that country.
And here is something that might surprise you: Stalin and Mao never actually shared a warm relationship. Stalin used to refer to Mao as a “radish”—red on the outside (a communist), but white on the inside (a capitalist).
Yes, I completely agree with you here. Stalin’s death was the beginning of the end for the USSR.
Once again, Comrade: The factories where this “copying” took place were built using Western capital. The Western owners were undoubtedly keen to ensure those factories generated a profit, so they dispatched their own specialists to help their Chinese comrades master the technologies more quickly; equipment and machinery were provided as well.
There is no miracle here, Comrade. I played football as a child, and back then, the Germans built an Adidas factory in Moscow. I used to buy Moscow-made Adidas boots; they were indistinguishable from the originals—except that they cost several times less.
Just imagine: if there had been thousands of such factories—as there are in China—what would have happened then? Moscow-made Adidas would have completely displaced German Adidas. Does that not remind you of anything?
The only catch is that, in the USSR, you could count the number of Western-built factories on the fingers of one hand…
As for the idea of simply copying something without developing it further… Have you heard about the Korean War, where American pilots suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Soviet airmen? The ratio was something like one to ten—I don’t recall the exact figures.
The whole secret lies in the fact that the aircraft flown by the Soviet pilots were copies of American designs—except that, in their version, the Russians altered the wing angle. And the Russians won.
Comrade, I feel a certain sense of embarrassment before you. This is the first time I have ever heard an American speak like this.
I am pleased to hear that. When I detect a certain note of regret… I truly hope it is sincere!
You can see that a cornered beast will fight to the bitter end! A cornered beast is capable of anything!
Comrade, it is one thing to merely observe, but quite another to be right in the epicenter. I am watching Russia—quite literally—through a pair of naval binoculars.
If I were to set up a drum, grab a spyglass, put on a tricorn hat, and perch myself on that drum—well, I could easily pass for Napoleon… )))
For those of us here, all these death throes… they reverberate back to us later with excruciating pain. Just now, Ukraine struck a dormitory; many teenagers were killed. And the retaliation will come flying back—right down onto our heads…
I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China’s Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China’s socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that’s why the birdcage is closing.
As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself.
I understand everything you’re saying, but that’s not what I’m getting at. If the USSR had received the same level of Western investment back then—the kind that was poured into China—it wouldn’t have been any worse off; in fact, to be more precise, the USSR would have absolutely skyrocketed.
I am more concerned about European globalists right now—because I am not from Iran, but from Kharkiv.
And those scumbags are constantly provoking… harder and harder.
Yes, the NEP was likely necessary—it was not without reason that Lenin introduced it. The peasantry had begun to resent the prodrazvyorstka (grain requisitioning system), and peasant uprisings flared up in several regions; Lenin introduced the NEP out of necessity—in part, to pacify the peasants.
However, Stalin did not abolish the NEP immediately; the policy remained in place—albeit under duress—for another four years.
Joseph Stalin viewed the New Economic Policy (NEP) not as a means of building socialism, but rather as a forced, temporary retreat designed to save Soviet power from economic ruin.
He criticized it for fostering a resurgence of capitalist elements, posing a threat of the countryside undergoing a “kulak”-driven regression, and being fundamentally incompatible with a planned economy.
Key points of Stalin’s critique of the NEP:
Resurgence of Capitalism:
Stalin argued that the NEP legalized private entrepreneurs (“NEPmen”) and stimulated the growth of the kulak class, leading to social stratification that worked to the detriment of the proletariat.
Constraints on Industrialization:
Small-scale private enterprise was incapable of providing the country with the heavy industry and advanced technology required for national defense.
The Threat of Socialist Failure:
In a speech delivered at a conference of Marxist historians (1929), he stated explicitly:
“If we adhere to the NEP, it is because it serves the cause of socialism. But when it ceases to serve that cause… we will cast it to hell.”
I highly value Mao’s achievements in unifying China—that is, indeed, an invaluable accomplishment.
However, it seems to me that as a politician, economist, and strategist, Mao was rather lackluster… perhaps because he was a romantic and an idealist.
And what, exactly, were his economic achievements? Mao compelled every peasant to build a furnace on their own property and cast low-quality pig iron. This is precisely what Stalin had refused to do: hand over heavy industry to small-scale cooperatives. Mao sought to boost pig iron and steel production tenfold within a decade using this method—relying on the peasants and the furnaces in their backyards. Do you consider that a sound strategic move?
The fanatical campaign to exterminate sparrows was merely a way to identify a concrete “enemy”—something to blame for poor harvests—rather than acknowledging the leadership’s own miscalculations.
The conflict with the USSR was a tactic to divert the public’s attention from the country’s true problems by designating an external enemy. At that time, China was engaged in a full-blown campaign to discredit the Soviet Union. They were plastering up all sorts of leaflets… it strikes me as very bizarre.
Meanwhile, in the USSR, the newspapers were describing China as—and you might be surprised to hear this—a “militarist” state.
Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.
As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent. Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.
As for the Sino-Soviet split, it’s a tragedy, and was avoidable.
There are many contradictions in your post, Comrade.
How could the USSR have achieved what China did—with the aid of Western assistance—if such Western aid was a priori ruled out, given that, in U.S. state strategy, the USSR was designated as Enemy No. 1?
And once again, you are pushing your central thesis: that China succeeded because it rectified the mistakes made by the USSR…
Don’t you find that we are just going around in circles?
You probably meant to say that industrialization was a complete failure and morphed into the “Cultural Revolution.” It seems to me that it was a gesture of desperation.
Should I laugh or cry, comrade?.. ))))
Key Milestones in Soviet-Chinese Nuclear Cooperation (1950–1958): Research Reactor and Cyclotron: On September 27, 1958, at the Institute of Atomic Energy in Beijing—with the assistance of the USSR—China’s first experimental heavy-water reactor and cyclotron were commissioned.
Do you believe that agronomy is more complex?
The Russians trained 10,000 Chinese specialists in nuclear energy. It was thanks to the USSR that China acquired nuclear weapons.
Mao really should have asked the Russians; the Soviets are quite nimble when it comes to catching sparrows… )))
I fully agree with you on this point—except regarding the economic aspect: Mao laid the foundations of a rock-solid party system that remains standing to this day. He also unified China.
As for his aspirations for China’s development, however, his actions strike me as chaotic—almost as if he had conceived of something grandiose but didn’t know where to begin.
At heart, he was a revolutionary, not a statesman. There were a great many such figures in the USSR during the 1930s—people who simply could not adapt to peacetime life.