was it ever possible for them to do a Dengist economic liberalization while preserving state authority and power or was it just always over for them
was it ever possible for them to do a Dengist economic liberalization while preserving state authority and power or was it just always over for them
Obviously.
Gorbachev basically did absolutely everything wrong that it was possible to do.
He allowed total freedom of speech and assembly which you could argue was still salvageable, but then you add on that he combined this with decentralization and giving the Russian federation (which had a super-majority of everything from population to resources) it's own autonomous leader.
For comparison if Deng were to have done the same thing he would have created a "Han state" inside China whose leader had autonomy and wanted to break away from the PRC, while simultaneously allowing Tiananmen to happen.
I would also point to China’s way more favourable demographics. Even in the 1980s the Chang population was skyrocketing with 4 births per woman and China was/is 90% Han. On the other hand, Only half of the USSR was ethnically russian.
I believe that one of the Chinese leaders said that Deng's reforms were the opposite of Gorbachev's. While Gorbachev focused on political freedom and neglected economic reform, Deng reasserted the Communist Party's authority and focused on economic reform.
it was never about "economic liberalization", the USSR did fine financially and were in fact a superpower. the problem was that the superstructure was never maintained and over the course of 50 years it rotted like an apple core. meanwhile china, twice, took preemptive steps to ensure this didn't happen. firstly maos cultural revolution, and secondly dengs iron fist in which we saw in tiananmen.
it's interesting that the Cultural Revolution had the unintended effect of allowing Deng to almost start from scratch when rebuilding China's political infrastructure
>unintended
never. you think mao would've wanted a rigid political infrastructure? the cultural revolution purposefully allowed for the right man to rise above the ashes of maoist china. mao was stupidly smart.
sounds like more of a based retard
most of the smartest men to ever live will give off that vibe when you look into them. its all philosophy. mao had read hegel back to front. who else read hegel back to front? lenin. lenin set the soviet union up perfectly for a man to grab it by the horns. imagine if trotsky had lead it? the horrors.
Pretty much all communists know hegel because Marx basically ripped off the idea of dialectics.
not at all. marx never stole from hegel he simply built upon him. marx credits hegel wholly. and besides, dialectics is only 1% of hegels work.
mao was dumb how? do you think he could have built the productive forces before the 70's?
First of all, use capitals when talking to me you Twitter tranny.
Second, stop double tagging my posts.
Third, Mao’s policies were all retarded. Collective farming, backyard furnaces, the four great pest campaign, the failure of the Great Leap Forward. Deng had to fix all of his mistakes with economic liberalization. Maoism was fucking horrible you suburban larper.
i don't believe in capital
Hah
>backyard furnaces, the four great pest campaign, the failure of the Great Leap Forward. Deng had to fix all of his mistakes with economic liberalization.
All of those things had already been fixed long before Deng grabbed power.
>Collective farming
Was found to be more efficient in China than private farming. Yields improved massively after collectivization, after the mistakes of the GLF were corrected.
>reddit spacing
Mao famously did *not* read that much Communist theory lmao
Lefttranny cope, the USSR was economically stagnating for decades and hedged its entire economy on gas exports. Mao was one of the dumbest political leaders of all time, and Dengs ability to right his mistakes was a miracle for China.
>great man theory
Funny how Mao's only ability was to be a warlord. The only thing we'd done right was defeating the KMT and the japanese, the rest of his life on government was a complete embarassment with the failure of the Great Leap Forward. Lmao I'm surprised on how he was never beheaded.
That’s what Glasnost/ Perestroika was supposed to be.
No. They'd shot their demographic wad, exhausted the easily available natural resources, grossly misallocated their industry, failed to enforce party discipline, pigeon-holed themselves as a provider of commodities (and tanks) on the global markets and done a thousand other missteps and failings that left them in a terminal state.
I wouldn't describe it as economic liberalization, but the soviets could have potentially solved many issues with the central planning model if OGAS had actually been attempted and implemented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS
Everything that killed the soviet union originated from the corruption (and genuine lack of adequate, up to the second information) inherent to the command economy. Heavily integrating computers into the central planning systems still remains one of the greatest "what-ifs", and given that every single socialist country that ended up actually trying to implement it saw the projects get suspiciously throttled in the cradle or run into misfortune, I think the CIA was worried about that what-ifs.
Allende experimented with the idea in Chile, and sure enough, the CIA got rid of him.
>Everything that killed the soviet union originated from the corruption inherent to the command economy
It emerged from the inherent problems of a system oriented around an extensive growth paradigm based upon early 20th-century notions of what an economy is and ought to be. Such a system hit its limits to growth, necessarily couldn't pivot, and terminated.
Adding computers doesn't materially change that, because it isn't actually an information-processing problem.
>lack of adequate, up to the second information
Which becomes moot because of path dependency. A steel mill using open hearths in the 1980s isn't going to metamorphize into a electric arc furnace-plant just by adding computers. It's also moot because your computerization is only as good as your data collection and your modelling; the first runs into analog hole-type problems, the second was sorely defective.
It was always over for them ultimately because the Age of Empires™ was over. Instead of them slowly shedding their colonies like the British they (russia) suddenly lost them. It was always going to end this way regardless of if they pulled off some economic miracle
Fucker, France still has colonies, so your point is moot.
They have mostly proxy colonies and a few scattered rocks in the ocean. And Russia still has Belarus as a proxy.
But wasn't the Soviet Union founded after most empires were declining in some form?
The soviet union was just a continuation of the Russian empire.
Dengism is retarded.
Absolutely not. By the time Gorbie arrived and started reforming, the USSR was already reduced to ashes. Even starting Deng-like reforms would only postpone the inevitable.
Was Deng even a Communist, he justs seems Moderate Socialist
he was spiritually a French Socialist
No, nothing short of total appeasement to the old guard would have prevented their chimpout, which is the real reason why the whole system imploded.
socialism without central economic planning isnt really socialism, so no. it would be just a pointless dictatorship, like many others.
Watch Traumazone if you're interested.