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.
The USSR was ruled as enemy number 1 precisely because it took a hard-line stance against colonialism and capitalism. The PRC, despite siding against colonialism and capitalism, ultimately is not nearly as fierce a fighter. This is the tradeoff, the “deal with the devil” that China made in order to advance socialism forward. The soviet path was not incorrect, but neither was the Chinese decision.
As for the Cultural revolution, again, it was a product of China coming from even less development than Russia had during its revolution. China absolutely relied on soviet help, no doubt exists in my mind on that, but you clearly cannot draw a 1 to 1 comparison. Without the industrialization of the economy under Mao, China would not be the industrial giant it is today.
The reason I say Mao’s contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin, turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one. Like the Stalin era, mistakes and excess occurred, but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became the backbone of the future economy and brought incredible improvements to quality of life and production.
The USSR was ruled as enemy number 1 precisely because it took a hard-line stance against colonialism and capitalism. The PRC, despite siding against colonialism and capitalism, ultimately is not nearly as fierce a fighter.
On the one hand, China isn’t exactly a fierce champion of socialist ideals; yet on the other, Mao loathes Khrushchev—and actually went to war against the USSR precisely because Khrushchev had betrayed those very ideals, betrayed Stalin. It’s a bit odd, isn’t it, Comrade?
Kafka is nervously smoking in the corner… You get what I mean, anyway.
This is the tradeoff, the “deal with the devil” that China made in order to advance socialism forward. The soviet path was not incorrect, but neither was the Chinese decision.
Yes, China had no other choice back then. It was a choice between reconciling with the USSR or turning toward the West. The Chinese proved to be a proud people, and so they turned to the West. I believe that China did not want to play second fiddle; it aspired to be the greatest socialist power of all.
What do you think would have happened back then—in the 70s—if China had chosen the USSR instead of selling its soul to the devil?
What course of events do you envision if two great nations were to unite against the yoke of capitalism—that force which devours everything in its path? Whether in the West or in China, there is essentially no difference… for what does it matter whether capitalism is “red” or “white”?
Without the industrialization of the economy under Mao
It failed—even though the Russians were helping. A great many Chinese students studied at universities across the USSR; there were plenty in my city, too. The USSR helped build factories and supplied machinery. Mao personally toured Soviet plants and copied their technological processes. He even secured a loan from Stalin.
So why, in that case, wouldn’t they have carried out industrialization?
You give Mao all the credit, while the assistance from the USSR somehow gets completely overlooked… Everything Mao achieved back then, he achieved with the help of the USSR. Had the USSR not provided nuclear weapons technology, the U.S. would have simply pecked China to death—strangled it. It was only after acquiring nuclear weapons that China attained true freedom. This is precisely what Iran needs; otherwise, it will be pecked to death in the exact same way.
The reason I say Mao’s contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin, turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one. Like the Stalin era, mistakes and excess occurred, but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became the backbone of the future economy and brought incredible improvements to quality of life and production.
The reason I say Mao’s contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin
Rather, like Lenin. Mao is the ideologue of Chinese socialism. Stalin always referred to himself as Lenin’s disciple.
turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one.
A different view prevails here: that the best work Mao ever did was accomplished before—or, to use the Soviet analogy, prior to 1921. Subsequently, however, Mao went off the rails, drifting into “uncharted territory”—uncharted, at least, for him. His approach to economic construction ultimately devolved into a nightmare for China. The path he was pursuing proved untenable, necessitating an abrupt change of course.
but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became
Yes, of course, there were many mistakes, but Stalin ended his journey on a high note.
As I said, the Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy. The world would have been better off had it never happened. However, China is not capitalist, just like public ownership under capitalism is not socialism, private ownership under socialism is not capitalism.
Further, I am not giving Mao all of the credit. Of course the USSR assisted. However, you’re giving Mao practically none of the credit for overseeing the same tumultuous period Stalin oversaw, in a country even less developed. Mao’s economic construction was not a mistake, it was uneven and unstable but ultimately positive, and serves as the bedrock for the modern socialist market economy.
Neither Mao nor Stalin were perfect. Both made mistakes, as any socialist leader will, especially in some of the earliest attempts. However, both also achieved tremendous results.
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.
The USSR was ruled as enemy number 1 precisely because it took a hard-line stance against colonialism and capitalism. The PRC, despite siding against colonialism and capitalism, ultimately is not nearly as fierce a fighter. This is the tradeoff, the “deal with the devil” that China made in order to advance socialism forward. The soviet path was not incorrect, but neither was the Chinese decision.
As for the Cultural revolution, again, it was a product of China coming from even less development than Russia had during its revolution. China absolutely relied on soviet help, no doubt exists in my mind on that, but you clearly cannot draw a 1 to 1 comparison. Without the industrialization of the economy under Mao, China would not be the industrial giant it is today.
The reason I say Mao’s contributions were essential is because Mao played a similar role as Stalin, turning a post-revolutionary country into a newly industrialized one. Like the Stalin era, mistakes and excess occurred, but also like the Stalin era, such industrialization became the backbone of the future economy and brought incredible improvements to quality of life and production.
On the one hand, China isn’t exactly a fierce champion of socialist ideals; yet on the other, Mao loathes Khrushchev—and actually went to war against the USSR precisely because Khrushchev had betrayed those very ideals, betrayed Stalin. It’s a bit odd, isn’t it, Comrade?
Kafka is nervously smoking in the corner… You get what I mean, anyway.
Yes, China had no other choice back then. It was a choice between reconciling with the USSR or turning toward the West. The Chinese proved to be a proud people, and so they turned to the West. I believe that China did not want to play second fiddle; it aspired to be the greatest socialist power of all.
What do you think would have happened back then—in the 70s—if China had chosen the USSR instead of selling its soul to the devil?
What course of events do you envision if two great nations were to unite against the yoke of capitalism—that force which devours everything in its path? Whether in the West or in China, there is essentially no difference… for what does it matter whether capitalism is “red” or “white”?
It failed—even though the Russians were helping. A great many Chinese students studied at universities across the USSR; there were plenty in my city, too. The USSR helped build factories and supplied machinery. Mao personally toured Soviet plants and copied their technological processes. He even secured a loan from Stalin.
So why, in that case, wouldn’t they have carried out industrialization?
You give Mao all the credit, while the assistance from the USSR somehow gets completely overlooked… Everything Mao achieved back then, he achieved with the help of the USSR. Had the USSR not provided nuclear weapons technology, the U.S. would have simply pecked China to death—strangled it. It was only after acquiring nuclear weapons that China attained true freedom. This is precisely what Iran needs; otherwise, it will be pecked to death in the exact same way.
Rather, like Lenin. Mao is the ideologue of Chinese socialism. Stalin always referred to himself as Lenin’s disciple.
A different view prevails here: that the best work Mao ever did was accomplished before—or, to use the Soviet analogy, prior to 1921. Subsequently, however, Mao went off the rails, drifting into “uncharted territory”—uncharted, at least, for him. His approach to economic construction ultimately devolved into a nightmare for China. The path he was pursuing proved untenable, necessitating an abrupt change of course.
Yes, of course, there were many mistakes, but Stalin ended his journey on a high note.
As I said, the Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy. The world would have been better off had it never happened. However, China is not capitalist, just like public ownership under capitalism is not socialism, private ownership under socialism is not capitalism.
Further, I am not giving Mao all of the credit. Of course the USSR assisted. However, you’re giving Mao practically none of the credit for overseeing the same tumultuous period Stalin oversaw, in a country even less developed. Mao’s economic construction was not a mistake, it was uneven and unstable but ultimately positive, and serves as the bedrock for the modern socialist market economy.
Neither Mao nor Stalin were perfect. Both made mistakes, as any socialist leader will, especially in some of the earliest attempts. However, both also achieved tremendous results.