Why didn't China fall when the USSR did?

Allied with America and thus their economy was safe.

this

Success.

>China’s SJWs
>best and brightest

Honestly if the USSR would have just left the 3 Baltics as satellite states instead of constitute republics within their country I think it'd be around today.

>they didn't need to slaughter China's best and brightest in the most over-the-top and brutal manner possible.
The Tienanmen protesters ranged from actual democracy activists to Hardcore Maoists pissed off at Deng's actions.

Doesn't answer shit. The USSR did market reform and got BTFO anyway.

It's a dog eat dog world
And the chinks eat the dogs

How to do market reforms properly
> Keep all resource extraction operations nationalized
> Identify lucrative export markets, tailor your economy to meet those demands
> Identify under-performing state enterprises/collective farms, privatize them
> Maintain control and stability to make investment more attractive to foreign companies

How not to do market reforms
> Firesale all your stuff because you want that money in your pocket

Most of Soviet reforms were either dismissed because of opposition or simply not implemented at all. Deng on the other hand had much more freedom for acting after removing the gang of four.

USSR: 50% Russian. No clear dominant ethnic group leaving both Russians and minority groups prone to nationalist sentiment which the state actively tries to eradicate.

China: 92% Han. Han Chinese interests are actively promoted by the government and nationalist sentiment among the Han works in the benefit of the state. Minorities are too few to do anything about it.

>No clear dominant ethnic group leaving both Russians and minority groups prone to nationalist sentiment which the state actively tries to eradicate.
Beyond the Baltics there wasn't much ethnic Strife. The Central Asian Stans had a good deal with the Soviets as did the Caucasus in general.

certainly not, the government would never allow that. but what did happen is that when the economy faltered the country split along ethnic lines. the same process couldn't occur in China for the reasons I listed.

during the russian civil war, lenin adopted war communism and only got to introduce market reforms until ~1920, and then Stalin took over in 1924 and reimplemented war communism and his five year plans. there weren't serious attempts at market reform again until gorbachev

>but what did happen is that when the economy faltered the country split along ethnic lines.
It didn't though. It split exactly along the lines of the Republics. For example North Kazakhstan has a Russian Majority yet they stayed a part of Kazakhstan. Likewise parts of East Latvia and Estonia have Russian majorities.

*introduce market reforms after ~1920

Or, you know, Taiwan or Hong Kong. Two functional Chinese democracies.

MAKE PIE
OR
BE PIE

china's economy never faltered though

According to Huntington, revolutions occur when things are actually getting better, not worse. But they occur when the improvement is slower than desired.

Perestroika improved things but not fast enough. Conversely, the Chinese government are shitting themselves about a growth rate that dips too far below the double digits.

>thousands
Nice meme

It was honestly the right decision in the long run. Stupid naive college kids and illiterate iron rice bowl peasants shouldn't be the ones dictating policy.

>small island nation of 20 million with U.S. economic support that claims to not be Chinese
>british city state

Hmmmmm

Because unlike Gorbachev, China wasn't too pussy to shoot their own rebelling citizens.

Huntington is discredited.

>two cucked irrelevant cities

>Huntington is discredited.

China shoots anyone who disagrees with communism

>Taiwan
>City

If Hua Guofeng was in charge in 1989 with no reform and opening up, it would have.

12 years of reform and opening up meant things were improving in China up to the point where the military didn't defect.

>China’s economy quintupled under Mao.

The GDP per capita was stagnant - the GDP grew due to the population increasing.

nah.

Almost all revolts happen when there is some sort of famine/crop failure, leading to people moving to the cities. This increases food prices, leads to general unrest and then any excuse to overthrow the current rulers.

see: Arab Spring for the most recent example

>US economy has stagnated for decades
>No revolution

?

I think it would take good prices exploding to get any real civil unrest beyond partisan protests.

lol what

I think he means in that the Baltic SSRs were the ones who drove the most for independence and broke off first, creating a chain reaction within the rest of the union.

Because China is a ancient society that knows how to run a country, they've been able to develop and maintain large bureaucracies for millennia and this tradition continued well into the modern age.

And after Mao good better government, even if it is rather authoritarian government.

China could abandon the communist pretense at any time, they just choose to keep with it because Mao set the precedent.

Too little too late, too opposed, and then after the USSR way way way too soon and too much.

Actually it split along the lines of the existing constituent republics. ethnic lines being quite blurry as a result of decades of internal migration, some of which was occasionally forced as a means of ethnic cleansing. If Texas seceded on its current boundaries, would that be along ethnic lines?

>t. 五毛

These are correct answer

Imbecile.

The vast majority were democracy advocates though, the unironic maoists were a negligible meme faction.

This statement couldnt be more wrong.

Protectionism and strong state. Russia destroyed its state and opened up to predatory foreigners.

>1962-1966
>Under Mao
Liu Shaoqi is spinning in his grave

There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square.

There was, but the vast majority of the killings took place in the Beijing suburbs, I'll give you that.

Laughed out loud senpai, someone should gdy on it

Basically a city state. Most of them LARP as not Chinese nowadays so the argument is irrelevant. The Tiananmen protestors were delusional idealists ans Deng made the right decision to crack down on them.

Do I support the use of force? Not really, but far better than the alternative for China (chaos, new cultural revolution, conservative backlash reversing all reforms).

Factually wrong. GDP per capita quadrupled between 1950 and 1976.

Mao improved living standards and equality. He was not focused on some weird statistical number measuring the amount of money laundering in the economy.

Chinese life expectancy rose from 42 in 1949 to 63 in 1976. One of the fastest rises ever.

No it didn't.

China did not see any economic growth until Deng.

Wow, almost as if there was a war, then there wasn't.

Retard.

>Netherlands
>"Basically a city state"
>Switzerland
>"Basically a city state"
>Belgium
>"Basically a city state"
>Moldova
>"Basically a city state"
>Israel
>"Basically a city state"
>The state of you

>the vast majority were democracy advocates
Yeah and the vast majority of people are equality advocates. What really matters is what they were actively protesting for, which in the case of the late-stage Tiananmen protestors was only partly some form of democracy.

People died at the same rate GDP rose :--)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_leader

Mao only granted him that power, as later shown in 1967.

Compared to the PRC the RoC is basically a city state.
1.42 billion people versus 21 million people.

Acting like the RoC and PRC faced the same conditions since 1949 is literally insane.

This. If you fuck with the Chicoms, they kill you, end of story. Everybody there knows this. They'll accept a few table scraps and keep their mouths shut. If they went out in the streets and pulled a BLM chimpout, the blood would flow again.

Ummm, no sweaty
This doesn’t even look at 1950 GDP numbers.

Life expectancy in 1954 (no war) was 47 IIRC.

You're right, Taiwan started off in an even worse position as they had zero natural resources.

wow from 67 dollars to 226 dollars. Truly epic. I suppose you were right as 1000% increases of basically fuck all still look impressive, on paper.

You don't seem to realise though how your own image makes you look extremely retarded for thinking mao was any good.

It's life expectancy FROM BIRTH you total fucking retard, not the average age people die at! Jesus christ it's like arguing with a child

The USSR was an empire, adn the Republics were often roiling factions within that empire. China isn't monolithic, but their factions are more cohesive, and the ongoing authoritarianism makes it so. The USSR held together as long as the USSR had forces forward deployed, with teeth. Once that went away, the empire began to break up into the factions.

There actually were some big protests in 1998, 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2016.

None were nearly as violently dispersed. China’s police are now better trained and handle all protests. The military needs politburo approval to interfere in any civilian affairs.

You may see another huge nationwide protest, but you won’t see a similarly bloody crackdown.
We have to remember that 1989 was 29 years ago. China was thoroughly poorer than Africa at the time.

>

They had the most important resource: the USA.

Mandate of heaven

stop this meme

Korea went from 45 to 300 between 1945 and 1972.

>22 year total improvement in life expectancy is meaningless

>There actually were some big protests in 1998, 2001, 2004, 2008, and 2016.
Relative to 1989 they were not "big", so it's hardly a fair comparison.
The guy you're replying is obviously exaggerating, but the sentiment is accurate. As soon as a domestic threat to CCP rule emerges, it's going to be annihilated.

>fall

US rulers wanted the USSR destroyed, and succeeded.
US rulers wanted China to prosper, and succeeded.

There's a reason China was against the USSR and all the major US companies and production is based in China.

>The USA is responsible for everything that happens, everywhere

Comes with the territory of being a global empire.

Not exactly. Much of the domestic unrest in China is allowed because:
1. The Party knows it’s not perfect.
2. The Central Government knows the Provinicial governments can be assholes to the people.
3. The Central Government likes stability and does not like bad internantional press about a bloody crackdown.

This is why the Party allows a certain level of unrest on most issues. For example, there was a massive protest in 2016 over a proposed nuclear recycling site in Nanjing. The government ended the proposal a week later.

The only really banned issue is the CCP itself.

Should have been named Tiananmen rebellion.

the soviet union never collapsed, read "perestroika deception" by anatoliy golitsyen, KGB defector, it was all a ruse to create a government that had the appearance of being democratic but was actually still authoritarian, ever wonder why putin has been in power for so long?, and i'm sure the KGB is still active too, journalists who criticizer putin have a habit of dying of 'heart attacks'

Do you even realise that you just affirmed everything I said in my post?

>people actually believe this bullshit
A fine argument for eugenics if there ever was one.

So it'd make it easier for you to lie about it online?

No need to lie about Tiananmen when Western News Media already does all the lying for me.

Another lie.

When does a massacre become a massacre? In the scope of Chinese history, it was just another uprising and subsequent crackdown, only in recent memory.

No I did not

You stated
>As soon as a domestic threat to CCP rule emerges, it's going to be annihilated.
The recent Beijing protests were in the tens of thousands, but there was no crackdown.

Do the Chinese teach their own history? If i were them, I wouldn't. How can one claim to be proud of such a horrible timeline?

kek

>No I did not
Yes you did.
>The recent Beijing protests were in the tens of thousands, but there was no crackdown.
Whatever these "recent Beijing protests" you're referring to were, they weren't a mortal threat to the CCP, as the 1989 movement was.
>The only really banned issue is the CCP itself.
Agreed!

This is the most hilariously disingenuous post I've seen here in a while.
>When does a massacre become a massacre?
Long before the point of murdering ~10,000 of your own citizens.
>In the scope of Chinese history, it was just another uprising and subsequent crackdown, only in recent memory.
Comical attempt at justification. Why bother complaining about any deaths, anywhere? After all, far more people died in the past! Context, people! xD

>Long before the point of murdering ~10,000 of your own citizens.
So literally 5 people then.
>Why bother complaining about any deaths, anywhere?
Who is complaining about deaths, I'm talking about nomenclature.

good people

hey retard, it was called the boston massacre because of Sons of Liberty propaganda. The british officers were tried in court (something the chinese butchers never came close to facing) and they were found not guilty. Their lawyer was John Adams btw.

...