What made the Chinese form of Communism work while Russia'a failed?

[rturner76]

Soviet Communism failed because Marxism was a rubbish foundation for an economy and because its persecution of Christians undermined its moral legitimacy.

Yes, freedom of religion must be established for any government to thrive. That is where the oppression hits the hardest and that has been something that the USA's form of democracy has thrived under. Freedom of speech and freedom in a society always makes people "feel better" about their leadership. Marxism also does not seem to work on a large scale like everyone living in public houseing and the government testing everyone's aptitude and assigning them a life long career. It makes people feel entitled to take what they can get from the government and give as little as possible.

I think in some cases Marxism has worked on a small scale like in the cases of well run communes and cults. It's surely not ideal but communities have been housed and fed without any outside help from the government. Still there would be a need for some members to get a university education in things like medical care and agriculture etc. Also, in the USA, model of small scale communism, people joined by choice and were not assigned any particular location, living arrangement, or job. Cults on the other hand can end up being oppressive depending on the sanity of their leader and their desire to be the only person allowed to mate with the female members.

Very informative/helpful post you put up

 

[mindlight]

Yes, freedom of religion must be established for any government to thrive. That is where the oppression hits the hardest and that has been something that the USA's form of democracy has thrived under. Freedom of speech and freedom in a society always makes people "feel better" about their leadership. Marxism also does not seem to work on a large scale like everyone living in public houseing and the government testing everyone's aptitude and assigning them a life long career. It makes people feel entitled to take what they can get from the government and give as little as possible.

I think in some cases Marxism has worked on a small scale like in the cases of well run communes and cults. It's surely not ideal but communities have been housed and fed without any outside help from the government. Still there would be a need for some members to get a university education in things like medical care and agriculture etc. Also, in the USA, model of small scale communism, people joined by choice and were not assigned any particular location, living arrangement, or job. Cults on the other hand can end up being oppressive depending on the sanity of their leader and their desire to be the only person allowed to mate with the female members.

Very informative/helpful post you put up

American democracy is a response to a "one size fits all" view of religion in Europe which caused so many wars. Whether of Anglican Christian nationalism or of Catholic claims to global supremacy. It allows denominations of the Christian faith to thrive without imposing limits. Its problem is that there are no borders to this freedom and when freedom crosses certain lines it degenerates into cults and new kinds of oppression on the personal or group level. Without a solid Christian experience of God in the general population, there is a danger that freedom falls into moral relativism.

The entitlement and victimhood of Marxists and indeed socialists generally find an older root in the natural divide between proud masters and envious slaves. Again religion is able to soften and sometimes eliminate these divides giving people a proper perspective on justice and truth before an Almighty God.

 

[Gene2memE]

Was it more Marx/Leninist under Chairman Mao?

Yes. They were trying to replicate Soviet 1920-1930s era command economy policies to support agricultural and industrial sector development.

From my understanding, Mao's policies were responsible for vast numbers of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labor, and mass executions, and his government was characterized as totalitarian.

And that's different from Marx-Leninist Communism in the Soviet Union how?

Mao's policies in the 1940s and 1950s have substantial overlap with Stalin's policies in the 1920s and 1930s.

Starvation: Soviet famine of 1930–1933 - Wikipedia
Persecution: Dekulakization - Wikipedia
Prison labor: Gulag - Wikipedia
Mass executions: Great Purge - Wikipedia
Totalitarian government: See all of the above

I saw a piece on China that showed how the streets that in the past were filled with bicycles are now filled with new cars. It seems that wouldn't be happining under a total Marxist regime so I get what you mean.

It's theoretically possible that the same would occur under a Marxist regime. The society as a whole would just need to reach a level of prosperity where personal vehicle use was universally possible.

 

[FireDragon76]

China's not really Communist, at least not in Marx-Leninist terms. China hasn't really been 'Communist' since the reforms that started in the mid 1970s. Even under Mao at the height of the Communist Revolution, there were still elements of free market capitalism in play in various parts of the economy.

The Chinese model is called 'market socialism' or 'socialism with a Chinese flavour', but its more like state-directed capitalism.

It's essentially a combination of stated goals and state-led initiatives, which are directed by a central plan that gets revised fairly frequently (small annual updates, big updates every 2 1/2 and 5 years). The achievement of these targets is generally focused through an 'industrial champion' or a number of similar enterprises. Under this, there is a form limited free market competition, where companies can bid for work and partner up with foreign business entities to bring in technology or resources. However, pricing and such is still heavily regulated.

The history of how that happened is fascinating. Mao fell out of favor with disasterous economic policies that caused a famine in the Great Leap Forward and basically tried to bully members of the Politburo with the Cultural Revolution when they sidelined him as premier. Upon his death the Politburo undertook a policy of reforms to open China up to the world for trade and economic growth.

Evaluating the Soviet Union is complicated. It never really recovered from the trauma of Stalin and WWII. It was certainly better than the mafia state of contemporary Russia, however, and Gorbachev basically envisioned a kind of state mixed economy similar to what happened in China. Liberal democracy failed in Russia, mostly because Russia suffers from weak political development, rampant alcoholism and apathy, and corrupt social institutions, such as the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[FireDragon76]

American democracy is a response to a "one size fits all" view of religion in Europe which caused so many wars. Whether of Anglican Christian nationalism or of Catholic claims to global supremacy. It allows denominations of the Christian faith to thrive without imposing limits. Its problem is that there are no borders to this freedom and when freedom crosses certain lines it degenerates into cults and new kinds of oppression on the personal or group level. Without a solid Christian experience of God in the general population, there is a danger that freedom falls into moral relativism.

The entitlement and victimhood of Marxists and indeed socialists generally find an older root in the natural divide between proud masters and envious slaves. Again religion is able to soften and sometimes eliminate these divides giving people a proper perspective on justice and truth before an Almighty God.

Christendom in Europe was often just a facade for the tyrranical rule of despots, feudal lords, greedy clerics, or for the subservience of the masses to the nation-state. World War I was proof enough of this, millions of youth went off to war, being told that God was with them, and against the enemy. It was a disaster. Conservative Christians forget that. The old Christendom is not something that should be revived. You can't denounce the horrors of Communism but exonerate Christendom, without being intellectually dishonest.

 

[FireDragon76]

China's 9am - 9pm 6 days a week work schedule is going to burn the population out entirely.

It already has. Young people in China no longer want to live like that, much like their peers in other countries, they are moving towards a post-material mindset.

China is having the same types of trends we have in the western world, beneath the official rhetoric.

 

[mindlight]

Christendom in Europe was often just a facade for the tyrranical rule of despots, feudal lords, greedy clerics, or for the subservience of the masses to the nation-state. World War I was proof enough of this, millions of youth went off to war, being told that God was with them, and against the enemy. It was a disaster. Conservative Christians forget that. The old Christendom is not something that should be revived. You can't denounce the horrors of Communism but exonerate Christendom, without being intellectually dishonest.

While church attendance was high before WW1 German Liberal theologians and atheistic socialists across the continent had already hollowed out the faith and true allegiance in many people of that time. It is true that nationalism, socialism and militarism very often trumped faith but I think you have to differentiate between those who fought for good reasons on both sides and those who were cowards or inauthentic. The British for example fought in response to a clear aggression and to preserve the balance of power and long-term peace of the continent. In an imperial context, Kaiser Wilhelm led his people to ruin but were his people wrong to obey the Emperor and fight his war, in most cases I would suggest not. The blame rests on the Kaiser and the Austro-Hungarian Emperor. The consequence of this war was materially devastating but death and destruction have never been the true criteria to evaluate faith. Christianity thrived in worse circumstances and was still strong even until the 1960s in Europe. The rot has really come since then with liberal theology and thinking.

 

[FireDragon76]

While church attendance was high before WW1 German Liberal theologians and atheistic socialists across the continent had already hollowed out the faith and true allegiance in many people of that time. It is true that nationalism, socialism and militarism very often trumped faith but I think you have to differentiate between those who fought for good reasons on both sides and those who were cowards or inauthentic. The British for example fought in response to a clear aggression and to preserve the balance of power and long-term peace of the continent. In an imperial context, Kaiser Wilhelm led his people to ruin but were his people wrong to obey the Emperor and fight his war, in most cases I would suggest not. The blame rests on the Kaiser and the Austro-Hungarian Emperor. The consequence of this war was materially devastating but death and destruction have never been the true criteria to evaluate faith. Christianity thrived in worse circumstances and was still strong even until the 1960s in Europe. The rot has really come since then with liberal theology and thinking.

There was alot of bloodshed in Europe even before WWI. It was not an ideal social order.

 

[mindlight]

There was alot of bloodshed in Europe even before WWI. It was not an ideal social order.

True but there was also an immense amount of good and the abolition of slavery, child labor, checks on the power of the state and indeed democracy itself were to a considerable extent the products of Christian thinking and culture. This also had positive impacts right around the world. The British Empire especially from the mid-nineteenth century began to frame its mission in Christian terms and to see its rationale in terms of bringing faith and civilization to countries around the world. Much of its growth in this period was because of a desire to protect natives against local despots or less benevolent powers.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, freedom of religion must be established for any government to thrive. That is where the oppression hits the hardest and that has been something that the USA's form of democracy has thrived under. Freedom of speech and freedom in a society always makes people "feel better" about their leadership. Marxism also does not seem to work on a large scale like everyone living in public houseing and the government testing everyone's aptitude and assigning them a life long career. It makes people feel entitled to take what they can get from the government and give as little as possible.

I think in some cases Marxism has worked on a small scale like in the cases of well run communes and cults. It's surely not ideal but communities have been housed and fed without any outside help from the government. Still there would be a need for some members to get a university education in things like medical care and agriculture etc. Also, in the USA, model of small scale communism, people joined by choice and were not assigned any particular location, living arrangement, or job. Cults on the other hand can end up being oppressive depending on the sanity of their leader and their desire to be the only person allowed to mate with the female members.

Very informative/helpful post you put up

Under Xi Jinping China has reverted to a more ideological stance and freedom of religion has waned to a considerable extent. As it has done so also the economic success of China has also started to falter. The checks on corruption and on the illegitimate use of power are things that the church can provide while still showing deference to the civil order as it stands. If China reverts to the purer form of communism modelled by Mao that could well be a disaster for its people and its future prosperity.

 

[FireDragon76]

True but there was also an immense amount of good and the abolition of slavery, child labor, checks on the power of the state and indeed democracy itself were to a considerable extent the products of Christian thinking and culture. This also had positive impacts right around the world. The British Empire especially from the mid-nineteenth century began to frame its mission in Christian terms and to see its rationale in terms of bringing faith and civilization to countries around the world. Much of its growth in this period was because of a desire to protect natives against local despots or less benevolent powers.

What you are describing is a grotesque distortion of the actual facts. The British paternalism concealed moral hypocrisy, they crushed native peoples and/or tried to ply them with drugs.

 

[mindlight]

What you are describing is a grotesque distortion of the actual facts. The British paternalism concealed moral hypocrisy, they crushed native peoples and/or tried to ply them with drugs.

Maybe you should read less biased accounts of the British Empire. Biggars, Colonialism or Niall Fergusons, Empire would be a good start. These are authentic about the faults of the empire but not as blind as modern academia and media to the good that it brought and to the real motivations of its decision-making. In the times which conceived it Empire was the best option for many of those ruled by the British.

 

[Diamond7]

What do you think?

People know the law. They do not try to extort money from people like we do in America.

 

[Gene2memE]

Maybe you should read less biased accounts of the British Empire. Biggars, Colonialism or Niall Fergusons, Empire would be a good start. These are authentic about the faults of the empire but not as blind as modern academia and media to the good that it brought and to the real motivations of its decision-making. In the times which conceived it Empire was the best option for many of those ruled by the British.

I studied British colonialism as part of my masters in history (my specific topic of interest was the Royal Navy's role in the development of global trade lanes).

Ferguson's Empire came out the year I did my masters. I've not picked it up for 15 years, but I remember him being particularly scathing of British hypocrisy when it came to attitudes towards the rule of law and liberalism at home vs the cynical realpolitik and 'benevolent' dictatorship in the colonies (particularly in large states where there wasn't a strong anglo population).

Yes, he argues that the British Empire was ultimately a force for good. But, I seem to recall a conclusion that this was due to the build up of institutions necessary to maintain British rule (largely the bureaucracy, education, communications, infrastructure and the professional colonial military establishments) and exploit the local economy. Empire became benevolent despite itself.

The British experiments with political, social and economic liberalism at home through the early to mid 1800 certainly weren't extended to the colonies and their populations. They were there to be exploited, or if they interfered in that exploitation, diverted, distracted, divided or eliminated.

Despite being a product of the Empire (my country is still a part of the Commonwealth), I think that the colonial period of my country's past should be looked at with shame. Even the period immediately after Federation wasn't exactly a glorious or benevolent period for the Australian aboriginal populations.

 

[mindlight]

I studied British colonialism as part of my masters in history (my specific topic of interest was the Royal Navy's role in the development of global trade lanes).

Ferguson's Empire came out the year I did my masters. I've not picked it up for 15 years, but I remember him being particularly scathing of British hypocrisy when it came to attitudes towards the rule of law and liberalism at home vs the cynical realpolitik and 'benevolent' dictatorship in the colonies (particularly in large states where there wasn't a strong anglo population).

Yes, he argues that the British Empire was ultimately a force for good. But, I seem to recall a conclusion that this was due to the build up of institutions necessary to maintain British rule (largely the bureaucracy, education, communications, infrastructure and the professional colonial military establishments) and exploit the local economy. Empire became benevolent despite itself.

The British experiments with political, social and economic liberalism at home through the early to mid 1800 certainly weren't extended to the colonies and their populations. They were there to be exploited, or if they interfered in that exploitation, diverted, distracted, divided or eliminated.

Despite being a product of the Empire (my country is still a part of the Commonwealth), I think that the colonial period of my country's past should be looked at with shame. Even the period immediately after Federation wasn't exactly a glorious or benevolent period for the Australian aboriginal populations.

Well, that seems quite a balanced and informed view. Also, I do accept that some aspects of the Empire are occasions for shame. But had Britain not taken over the slave trade it would not have been in a position to end it. A clear example of UK local politics having consequences across the whole Empire project.

If the British were not in India then Sati might still be being practiced. Very often the British takeover of places meant that the local barbarians could no longer terrorize their populations nor murder them. My grandfather worked on the railways in India and came from a family of engineers who built infrastructure in India. You could argue that this was for the profit of companies and control of the country but it had benefits to India that persist until today.

When partition came and independence he was asked to remain by the Indian government and worked on the railways until 1955. He loved the place and gave the best years of his life serving the people there. His role on the railways may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives moving Muslims and Hindus from places where they could be murdered to places where they would not be. My family fought the Japanese in Burma and no one can pretend that they would have been better masters of India than the British were.

So no Empire is not something that evokes shame in me. Without it we would not have the same measure of international trade, prosperity and interconnectivity we have today. Without it the world would have been dominated by far less enlightened powers and we saved lives from oppression by ending slavery and birthing countries with democratic institutions and we saved lives from widow burning, tribal genocide and weird religious rituals that included human sacrifice.

Maybe the emotions here are still too fresh. Maybe newly independent countries are looking for someone to blame for their troubles but most benefited from British rule and the Christianizing and civilizing influence that came with it. Also, the British are looking for trade deals with people who still have these chips on their shoulders. But a hundred years from now people will not look at the Empire as a failed project in the main but rather as a blessing they just cannot see right now.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So China does NOT have a top ranked economy on the world stage? Do you mean it doesn't work in terms of lack of personal freedom, work camps, and the like?

"Top ranked" can mean a lot of things, depending on what you're measuring. In terms of nominal GDP, China is #2 (behind the US) - but nominal GDP is largely a function of population size. China could be doing everything wrong, but if they added another billion people to the mix, their GDP numbers would suddenly look great.

If you look at per capita GDP, China is ranked #71, at right about the world average.

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org