r u even remotely implying that the USSR was ever or even Russia today has ever been socially more progressive than the US?

also cold war means nothing to u?

In the 50s, Khrushchev saw the need to focus on light goods, while Mao was more set on heavy industry. To be fair, China was not as economically advanced as the USSR yet (and never was during the lifetime of the USSR) so they had different starting points. China started out much poorer.

China had some bad policy decisions, like the backyard furnaces (which the USSR opposed) and the Sparrows campaign, but their economy absolutely did not need a pivot towards market systems. This is cope Dengoids keep bringing up that just isn't true. Recently it has been argued that China would have an even bigger economy using Mao's system:

In a paper, the four economists — from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Princeton, Yale and Sciences Po in Paris — have examined productivity and growth rates in China at the height of the Maoist period and extrapolated those to predict how the country would grow between now and 2050 had it returned to those policies.
.
They concluded that the abolition of the private sector in China and the return to a command economy would yield an annual average gross domestic product growth rate of 4 to 5 per cent between now and 2050. .
That was only about a percentage point less than the average growth rate they predict China will achieve if it continues with market-based reforms that began in the late 1970s and are credited with lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty in only a few decades.
.
“Our model is essentially an accounting exercise that allows us to uncover the key factors of growth in China during and after the Mao era,” said Aleh Tsyvinski, a professor of economics at Yale and co-author of the report.
.
“The main point of our findings is that, contrary to common misconceptions, productivity growth under Mao, particularly in the non-agricultural sector, was actually pretty good.”
.
Assuming a continuation of current policies, the paper predicts the Chinese economy will expand 7-8 per cent for the next 10 years or so, with growth slowing to 5.2 per cent on average between 2024 and 2036 and then a rate of just 3.6 per cent between 2036 and 2050. .
That is actually slower than the growth rate of 3.9 per cent it predicts between 2036 and 2050 if China were to return to Maoist policies.

100 years isn't nothing in the grand scheme of human life lol

oh yeah I agree with with all the bad economic positions and not needing Markets.

Just curious on Mao criticising USSR focus on heavy industry, as Mao backed it up by increasing investment into the agriculture industry and cutting taxes for them as well.

I was never a fan of that study since its "theoretical" I guess.

????

karl marx is dead lenin is dead

its gonna be 50 more gens of them before another ussr

man u haven’t read any history of the u.s then post civil right act weve done some f***ed up things to keep socialism at bay; even mild democratic socialism

Yes easily lmfao, the USSR supported anti-apartheid struggles while the US gave the tip that got Mandela arrested.

The USSR supported anticolonial struggles in other countries while the US sided with their colonizers in arms.

And domestically too, the USSR and other socialist countries were more socially progressive on many fronts than the US.

didnt USSR central committee or whatever it was have 50% women of it during its existence, and they supported African liberation movements while the USA was trying to crush them lol.

nice anecdote

the 40,000 Black people that live in russia today prob wont agree tho, just my guess

russia today

we arent talking about Russia today tho

The colonial war of the West against third world liberation movements*

Yeah Mao was right on that one. The USSR's focus on the weapons and arms industry was especially disastrous, Reagan did the right move by forcing them to increase their spending and bankrupt them that way.

Why not a fan of the study? It's in essence an accounting exercise but still interesting to see that even bourgeois economists can admit that not all was wrong about central planning

Is Russia today capitalist or socialist?

its no way u think economic system has s*** to do with racial relations of the time

because it threatens their global homogeny especially in the global south.

russia in 2021 is more racist than russia in the 60s

-ktt

Yes it makes a difference. Capitalist countries induce a different culture purely based on their economy than socialist countries do. Here is a thread about a study on narcissism in East vs West Germany: ktt2.com/does-capitalism-promote-narcissism-32507407

For example: You don't think that the transatlantic slave trade, an economic decision, influenced how people with dark skin were viewed in the West?

just due to it being a model and a predication of how it could have grown requires most of history to be the same, if China did still have central planning the Gang of Four would have won and they would have made different political decisions than Deng which could have disrupted or improved things.

True & makes sense, definitely was reading too much into it

So would being a capitalist be like subscribing to a religion? In this metaphor I guess

It absolutely did lmfao

Different times of course b. I'd also say much of America and Europe's racist influence has made its way into some countries that would normally not give af about race the more time has gone on. Doesn't excuse racism in current day Russia of course, just gotta understand where certain attitudes came from.

wasnt mandela a leftist?

educate me pls