commies

>>2250849
There were no commies in charge of USSR after Stalin's death. The whole process of "de-stalinisation" was a slow start towards modern Russia. Hence the broken relations between Mao and Khruschev.
Think about it, why would you denounce the greatest leader Russia ever had, no, communists ever had, as a head of the same communist country? Because you don't want that country and it's legacy to succeed. It's that simple.
Also modern PRC is a capitalist country. Don't forget that.

Because they did not think to do it.

>>2250849
Gorbachev was a weak man who wanted liberalization too fast and couldn't exercise force and control after his naive ideal started undermining the entire bureaucratic structure.

>>2250879
There were also no commies in charge of China after Mao died and the leftists were purged. But China managed to make the most of it while Russia just stagnated for a few decades.

Best guess I've seen is that Chinese reforms were basically giving more freedom to the people and letting them work out how to better do their thing instead of trying to forcefully solve every minor problem from the top, taking huge losses if things don't go as planned and result, for example, in a massive famine.
Gorbachev's reforms were exactly that - a very forceful attempt to solve country's problems from the top instead of giving more freedom to the people and letting them improve their own lives. And when his reforms didn't work out the entire country fell because he had no trust from the people or from the elite anymore.

Gorbachev choose both political and economic liberalisation to handle the economic crisis while Chinese went only for the economic liberalisation leaving the repression mechanisms in place. As a result SU didn't have the repressive mechanisms in place to handle public discontent with the economic crisis.
Also, SU had a way higher quality of life than China. There us no way their citizens would agree to work long shifts in factories for 10 dollars a day which is essentially what the Chinese did.

>>2250849
Russia is European and much more politically ideological than China. 'Ideology' in China much like 'ideology' in America is a dichotomous duality; in America, there's themes of centralised progressivism and libertarian conservatism, while in China, there's thems of legalism and Confucianism. The two in both cases have inverse correlations and swing back and forth like a pendulum. Mao is simply a case of legalism running in full swing after the decentralisation of Confucianist oligarchy from the late Qings, to the Warlords and to the Nationalists incurred its mark, and now with Xi it's swinging back slightly

>>2251129
>Legalism and Confucianism
So does Confucianism not believe in the law or what?

>>2250849
cuz CIA orchestrated the collapse and balkanization

File: 1484247479780.png (24KB, 419x419px)

24KB, 419x419px

Because The Public Intellectual do bad in China. They advocate American democracy but neglect the real Chinese situation in China. They should affect Chinese lower class in China instead of middle-class people, and Chinese lower class people are appealed by the Chinese government.

>>2251446
What the fuck is the Public Intellectual

>>2251129
If anything, Mao seems more "confucian" than legalist.

>>2252818
Mao wanted to abolish old rules and instate new ones like every Communist ever, so he's more Legalist than Confucian. I haven't read the primary source myself (only the wiki), but people usually quote the 'Discourses on Salt and Iron' in order to highlight the antagonistic differences between Legalist as statist progressivism and Confucian as libertarian conservatism (if we identify them in the context of today's political ideology). In one part, the Confucian scholars argued that there should had been no intervention towards the cycle of agricultural productions that had been going on for many successive monarchs. The Legalist Prime Minister argued continuing the new law, in favor of artisans and traders, the 'new' dominant wheels of the economy. Furthermore, the Confucians were also in favor of restoring old laws. This restoration (or reform) is in the context of repealing Legalist acts.

Lin Biao was painted as the Modern Confucius or something (kek), during the GPCR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticize_Lin,_Criticize_Confucius

Correct me if I'm wrong, by the way.

China has dense populations on the coast which are ideal as a center of commerce and industry like the asian tigers. Russia doesn't have a place like this. The St. Petersburg and Moscow area is ok, modern roads and transport reduce the burden and many middle classes want to live in Russia, but in a global economy it has to compete with the blue banana and other places and most of Russia is even more isolated.

>>2251107
>>2251118
Which post is correct?

>>2250849
When will people realize that the USSR crashed not because of communism, but because of oil? I mean I'm not even a communist but it's just so fucking obvious, yet people meme about Gorbachev and shit as if he had any real impact on it either way. You're all fucking stupid.

>>2253052
>implying communism wasn't what cornholed their economy to the point where they were that dependent on oil

>>2253052
This is an unsubstantiated meme

>>2253052
And the reason that it was so reliant on oil in the first place and had nothing else to fall back on was because of communism.

>>2253052
All the other non communist oil producing countries did just fine.