What if China's transition from a centrally planned economy to a Free market one lead to it's Collapse, like in Russia?

[Wr1t3r]

China's Communist Party maintained control and guided reforms from a centrally planned to a free market economy, but in Russia, the collapse of the USSR led to political instability and chaos that hampered reforms in the 1990s & China's growth lifted millions out of poverty in spite of growing inequality, meanwhile Russia's "shock therapy" reforms caused a drop in living standards for many as well as increasing inequality.

But, what if China's mirrored Russia's?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

China's Communist Party maintained control and guided reforms from a centrally planned to a free market economy, but in Russia, the collapse of the USSR led to political instability and chaos that hampered reforms in the 1990s & China's growth lifted millions out of poverty in spite of growing inequality, meanwhile Russia's "shock therapy" reforms caused a drop in living standards for many as well as increasing inequality.

But, what if China's mirrored Russia's?

USSR collapsed because Gorbachev destroyed the system with his misleaded reforms, Deng never was as radical as Gorbachev and made a slow transition to market economy which is very unlikely to collapse as if it fails he can always return to the previous system.

 

[Tresckow]

China's growth lifted millions out of poverty

That's dubious.

 

[TheKutKu]

That's dubious.

True, it lifted a billion out of poverty, not millions. Probably one of the greatest things to happen to mankind in the past 40 years too.

 

[Wr1t3r]

USSR collapsed because Gorbachev destroyed the system with his misleaded reforms, Deng never was as radical as Gorbachev and made a slow transition to market economy which is very unlikely to collapse as if it fails he can always return to the previous system.

Ig my PoD would be Deng being as radical as Gorbachev

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Ig my POD would be Deng being as radical as Gorbachev

Even then the Chinese economy wasn't plagued by decades of mismanagement under Brezhnev and Deng is not unlikely to removed from power if he tries to democratize China and his economic reforms fail

 

[Tresckow]

True, it lifted a billion out of poverty, not millions. Probably one of the greatest things to happen to mankind in the past 40 years too.

I'm not getting into PRC apologia, or else this thread will rapidly enter CurPol, and we will have to summon the bear from the State of California, or a bear named Calvin.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The two countries were at altogether different levels of economic development, the Soviet Union being a middle-income economy with lots of productivity issues and no easy answer, and China being a lower-income country with lots of potential for quick and easy productivity gains. China simply had to slack on economic controls and continue investment in infrastructure and human development; the Soviet Union had to revise its entire raison d'être, starting with its foreign policy.

 

[Tresckow]

Anyways back to the topic.

You would need someone more reformist than Deng. I'd say Deng Xiaoping was more of a pragmatist than a reformist, but Mao had set the bar so low for quality of life that even the smallest improvement would seem like a radical change of pace.

They might be too young for the 1970s, but Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were akin to Gorbachev; they genuinely wanted democratization of his nation but was unwilling to recognize that the political establishment would refuse to go along with them. Alternatively, you could have Hu go further with reformism, which would likely trigger a coup by the party hardliners, and you get an August Coup event going.

 

[TheKutKu]

I'm not getting into PRC apologia, or else this thread will rapidly enter CurPol, and we will have to summon the bear from the State of California, or a bear named Calvin.

There was not a hint of political apologia in my post, just facts, similar trend of decreasing poverty are generally happening across much of the developping world regardless of political regime, with some setbacks over the past 5 years, accept these facts or deny reality.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Anyways back to the topic.

You would need someone more reformist than Deng. I'd say Deng Xiaoping was more of a pragmatist than a reformist, but Mao had set the bar so low for quality of life that even the smallest improvement would seem like a radical change of pace.

They might be too young for the 1970s, but Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were akin to Gorbachev; they genuinely wanted democratization of his nation but was unwilling to recognize that the political establishment would refuse to go along with them. Alternatively, you could have Hu go further with reformism, which would likely trigger a coup by the party hardliners, and you get an August Coup event going.

The August Coup was in a completely different context than this one, in Soviet Union Yeltsin and other nationalists were becoming increasingly powerful for a few years and Gorbachev had failed to reform the economy and the state leading to popular hatred.

The two countries were at altogether different levels of economic development, the Soviet Union being a middle-income economy with lots of productivity issues and no easy answer, and China being a lower-income country with lots of potential for quick and easy productivity gains. China simply had to slack on economic controls and continue investment in infrastructure and human development; the Soviet Union had to revise its entire raison d'être, starting with its foreign policy.

It didn't have to reinvent itself it (objectively) only had to make economic reforms which made it more economically competitive, it was Gorbachev with his liberal ideas that decided that it was time to change the whole system and then miserably failed.

 

[rfmcdonald]

The August Coup was in a completely different context than this one, in Soviet Union Yeltsin and other nationalists were becoming increasingly powerful for a few years and Gorbachev had failed to reform the economy and the state leading to popular hatred.

It didn't have to reinvent itself it (objectively) only had to make economic reforms which made it more economically competitive, it was Gorbachev with his liberal ideas that decided that it was time to change the whole system and then miserably failed.

It did need to do that. Weak productivity growth could be traced, for instance to the very heavy military spending needed to retain the empire and deter the outside world. There would be no way to cut this politically essential spending unless the need for it went away, i.e. the Cold War moderated substantially or ended.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It did need to do that. Weak productivity growth could be traced, for instance to the very heavy military spending needed to retain the empire and deter the outside world. There would be no way to cut this politically essential spending unless the need for it went away, i.e. the Cold War moderated substantially or ended.

Military burden wasn't what ended the Soviets, it was the fact that the rest of their economy was inefficient and more importantly because of Gorbachev and his misleaded reforms.

 

[Wr1t3r]

if he tries to democratize China and his economic reforms fail

What if he doesn't?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What if he doesn't?

Do you really think the CCP wants democracy? He won't last very long if he tries

 

[rfmcdonald]

Military burden wasn't what ended the Soviets, it was the fact that the rest of their economy was inefficient and more importantly because of Gorbachev and his misleaded reforms.

No, the military burden was precisely the issue, starving the remainder of the Soviet economy with its demands for scarce human capital and even scarcer financial capital. (That all this military spending was not producing a competitive military made things worse.)

Meanwhile, Soviet Communism kept the Soviet Union and its satellites from moving forward, integrating with global markets and the like. Part of this was because of mismanagement, part of this was because the Cold War made it impossible for the Soviet bloc to integrate into world markets. The best-case scenarios were the back-door integration of the GDR through the FRG and the goulash Communism of Hungary. Even favoured countries like Czechoslovakia and East Germany had probably fallen out of the high-income club, to say nothing of a poorer Soviet Union that had started to deindustrialize in the 1970s.

There was a whole web of interlocking problems that made successful reform of European Communism very difficult. These did not exist with China, which has many fewer geopolitical complications and had easier gains in sight.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Anyways back to the topic.

You would need someone more reformist than Deng. I'd say Deng Xiaoping was more of a pragmatist than a reformist, but Mao had set the bar so low for quality of life that even the smallest improvement would seem like a radical change of pace.

They might be too young for the 1970s, but Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were akin to Gorbachev; they genuinely wanted democratization of his nation but was unwilling to recognize that the political establishment would refuse to go along with them. Alternatively, you could have Hu go further with reformism, which would likely trigger a coup by the party hardliners, and you get an August Coup event going.

I would note that China politically would evolve rather differently from the Soviet Union, not least because China was arguably a nation-state with only marginal factions wanting secession. No one will let Tibet go away.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

China's Communist Party maintained control and guided reforms from a centrally planned to a free market economy, but in Russia, the collapse of the USSR led to political instability and chaos that hampered reforms in the 1990s & China's growth lifted millions out of poverty in spite of growing inequality, meanwhile Russia's "shock therapy" reforms caused a drop in living standards for many as well as increasing inequality.

But, what if China's mirrored Russia's?

A key point with Gorby's reforms was political openness. Deng wasn't as repressive as Mao, but he did do the Tiananmen Square Massacre. This means that the economic disruptions caused by Deng's reforms (and yeah this wasn't a smooth process) weren't paired with political instability and state inaction.

Additionally, the demographics of the matter need to be accounted for. China transitioned while it had a large, poor, but also reasonably educated, young population. Meaning it was very competitive in the international labour market, and also had lots of "up and coming" ideas guys ready and waiting for the opportunities created by marketization. The USSR had the opposite, an old population with few young people most of whom expected a wage that reflected their university degrees meaning Soviet labour wasn't going to be competitive regardless of the reforms, and what ideas guys it did have were largely the (actually quite clever) scoundrels who'd found ways to get fat off corruption in the Soviet system.

 

[rfmcdonald]

A key point with Gorby's reforms was political openness. Deng wasn't as repressive as Mao, but he did do the Tiananmen Square Massacre. This means that the economic disruptions caused by Deng's reforms (and yeah this wasn't a smooth process) weren't paired with political instability and state inaction.

Additionally, the demographics of the matter need to be accounted for. China transitioned while it had a large, poor, but also reasonably educated, young population. Meaning it was very competitive in the international labour market, and also had lots of "up and coming" ideas guys ready and waiting for the opportunities created by marketization. The USSR had the opposite, an old population with few young people most of whom expected a wage that reflected their university degrees meaning Soviet labour wasn't going to be competitive regardless of the reforms.

Quite.

I recall that Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer suggested that the CCP, on the basis of its successful economic transitions and transformation of China into a world power, might well have been able to set up a one-party.domiabnt system. Congress in India was his analogy.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

No, the military burden was precisely the issue, starving the remainder of the Soviet economy with its demands for scarce human capital and even scarcer financial capital. (That all this military spending was not producing a competitive military made things worse.)

Meanwhile, Soviet Communism kept the Soviet Union and its satellites from moving forward, integrating with global markets and the like. Part of this was because of mismanagement, part of this was because the Cold War made it impossible for the Soviet bloc to integrate into world markets. The best-case scenarios were the back-door integration of the GDR through the FRG and the goulash Communism of Hungary. Even favoured countries like Czechoslovakia and East Germany had probably fallen out of the high-income club, to say nothing of a poorer Soviet Union that had started to deindustrialize in the 1970s.

There was a whole web of interlocking problems that made successful reform of European Communism very difficult. These did not exist with China, which has many fewer geopolitical complications and had easier gains in sight.

Soviet sold oil to Western Europe to cover their budget deficit and you know what they buy with the profits? Food which they can produce themselves.
The problem isn't the military budget it's that the rest of the system is catastrophic due to Brezhnev era mismanagement, if it was because of the military budget then explain me why didn't the Soviets collapse earlier and why did the Soviets collapse when they stopped spending as much on the military.