Christian Capitalists...

[metis]

In regards to Russia and China, one thing that I would note is that, for the most part, communism actually improved the state of affairs in both countries. Pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia was pretty much a disaster already, and pre-revolutionary China was in even worse shape. I think the early Bolsheviks actually wanted to put power in the hands of the local "soviets," which is the Russian word for "council." On paper, that's how it was supposed to work, but it didn't turn out that way in practice. The organizational structure was weak and didn't really have any effective system of checks and balances to prevent corruption, abuses, or the usurpation of absolute power.

To be sure, the Soviets did fare better than their Tsarist predecessors when comparing how they did against the Germans in WW2 as opposed to WW1. They also gave the West a good run for our money during the Cold War. That may have been their biggest mistake - and ours, too, since both sides were madly preparing for a war that neither really had any desire to fight nor any plan to fight. Yet both sides were worried that the other would attack if they ever let their guard down. In addition, there was a propaganda/ideological battle in play, as both sides argued the merits of capitalism vs. communism as if missionaries spreading their religious views. That's one thing I've noticed that both factions had in common, is that both were ideologically rigid and inflexible. That's what led to the Soviets' undoing, and it will likely lead to the West's undoing as well.

In contrast, the Chinese have shown some flexibility, abandoning previous ideas that didn't work for them and taking what they see as the more favorable aspects of both systems and applying them in a practical and reasonably successful manner. Just as we were able to turn the Sino-Soviet schism to our short-term advantage, China was working more for long-term advantage.

Excellent points. The only point above that I would put a qualifier on is that even without the Cold War, the Soviets were doomed. I read a book by George F. Keenan, the notable Sovietologist, back in the late 1970's, and he said that the U.S. need not threaten conflict with the Soviets because they're economy was simply way too inefficient to survive the move to a global economy. The Pubs have continually claimed that Saint Reagan did it, but the reality is that it was basic economics that did them in.

 

[metis]

Incidentally, I think it's funny when Americans insist that China "isn't really Communist", given that Americans also have a tendency to complain about the least whiff of socialist reform in their own government. China certainly isn't a laissez-faire market. Reforms notwithstanding, their system is still overtly Leninist, and intentionally so; they "allow" semi-private enterprise because it generally benefits everyone, but they haven't actually relinquished control over any of it.

Yes, and I have seen this so many times that I'm now seeing cross-eyed. Those on the political right here brag about China's inclusion of competition, because this suits their fancy, but then resort to condemning China's economics when it suits their fancy to go in the opposite direction.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are some quite serious problems that China is still facing, so it's hardly Shangri-La.

 

[Stevicus]

Excellent points. The only point above that I would put a qualifier on is that even without the Cold War, the Soviets were doomed. I read a book by George F. Keenan, the notable Sovietologist, back in the late 1970's, and he said that the U.S. need not threaten conflict with the Soviets because they're economy was simply way too inefficient to survive the move to a global economy. The Pubs have continually claimed that Saint Reagan did it, but the reality is that it was basic economics that did them in.

I agree. I would also note that, at least when looking at the Soviet economy and comparing it on a surface level to the American economy, I would also consider the fact that they were devastated by two world wars and a civil war, while we were relatively untouched during the same period. It's understandable that they would have faced greater economic hardships than we would ordinarily be accustomed to, regardless of whichever system either of us had.

It's hard to imagine what things would look like without the Cold War. A few years after Stalin's death, Khrushchev officially denounced him and tried to dissociate the party and government from Stalin's memory, but by that time, the entire party hierarchy and state structure were products and beneficiaries of the Stalinist system.

Also by that time, whole generations had been born and raised since the Revolution, so the original reasons for actually having a revolution and establishing the Soviet state in the first place seemed less relevant to those who weren't alive back then. I think of old footage of Brezhnev and those other fossils standing atop Lenin's Tomb and watching parades in Red Square, but the reality is that their kids were wanting blue jeans and rock and roll. They were also experiencing rising tensions in the non-Russian republics, as well as difficulties holding control over their Eastern European satellites.

By the late 70s, I think they were more worried about China than they were about us. By the time Gorbachev came to power and introduced Glasnost, many of the longstanding underlying issues were starting to come to the surface. I think Gorbachev was well-meaning in that he wanted to implement reasonable reforms and bring about greater freedom and openness in the Soviet Union. He wanted to improve relations with the West and present the Soviet Union as a responsible member in the family of nations, not some pariah or "evil empire." I don't think anyone really expected the entire enterprise to just suddenly break up as it did, but the Soviet constitution guaranteed the right of individual republics to secede from the Soviet Union. It was on paper, and it was their legal right to do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and I have seen this so many times that I'm now seeing cross-eyed. Those on the political right here brag about China's inclusion of competition, because this suits their fancy, but then resort to condemning China's economics when it suits their fancy to go in the opposite direction.

It seems you find no connection between China's adopting capitalism & their improving their economy & eliminating famines. This must be what suits your "fancy".