[MaxPock]

The Soviet Union began to collapse the moment it abandoned Lenin’s NEP. If they had reintroduced it in the 1960s, after recovering from World War II, they could have quickly caught up with the West—perhaps even surpassed it. In many ways, China is the successful version of the USSR.

[anovikov]

China had limitless almost free labor. Soviet Union had a deficit of labor by late 1960s already, and again by late 1970s - in 1974 they did a temporary fix by liberating the peasants which helped for a few years until those ran out, too. Chinese way could NOT work in the Soviet Union, they never had that alternative. The window of opportunity when they had sufficient labor reserves to try it was way too short - some years in mid-1960s - before then, they still suffered from consequences of WWII losses - and even if tried then, that would've been a botched effort just for not having enough time. Chinese didn't get almost anything out of their economic opening for the first ~15 years remember. China remained dirt poor through mid-1990s.

Their only opportunity to truly fix things was to accept Marshall plan, and thus finish with Communism and introduce private properly and democracy, after WWII. But personal ambitions of the leadership prevented that.

[Eliah_Lakhin]

A huge part of China's success stems from the fact that Nixon opened up U.S. markets to China, along with U.S. investment capital. It was a key strategic decision made by the United States to counter Soviet influence in Asia. China's reforms were merely an adaptation to the new opportunities that arose from this shift.

Another important factor was China's significantly larger population compared to the Soviet Union, combined with notably lower labor costs. All these factors eventually propelled the country to great prosperity. Without them, I think China today wouldn't look much different from any other East Asian country.

The Soviets simply didn't have such opportunities. Leaving aside the fact that Western countries never offered them a similar deal, Soviet labor simply couldn't match the industrial productivity enabled by the cheap workforce of East Asian countries.

The USSR had vast land and abundant natural resources, but its population density was relatively low. Additionally, it already possessed advanced technologies and a well-developed industrial base. From the U.S. perspective, such a country looked more like a potential (and actual) competitor rather than just another member of the Western economic system.

I'm not a big fan of a planned economy. And I believe that the lack of social freedoms and democratic institutions, typical of Western countries, was a major factor in the Soviet collapse. But regardless of the decisions and reforms Soviet authorities could have made after World War II, I think the country was doomed either way.

The Soviet Union simply didn't have a large enough population to effectively develop such an enormous landmass. After WWII, significant male losses and the effects of the second demographic transition led to continuous population decline. The only reasonable course of action would have been to relinquish part of its global influence and territory, which it eventually did — but perhaps too late. However, the authorities of any country rarely want to give up power, and the Soviets were no exception.

As for turning points, I don't think it was the NEP. More likely, the Communist (October) Revolution itself was the crucial historical moment. The Russian Empire was a relatively promising state, evolving in the right direction. It was gradually building democratic institutions and transitioning to a liberal economy. Its industrial development was progressing similarly to other European countries — perhaps with some lag, but still moving forward.

Perhaps the real turning point in Russian history was when radicals, driven by controversial economic and social ideas, inherited a wealthy country and used its potential for large-scale social experiments.

[Muromec]

>After WWII, significant male losses and the effects of the second demographic transition led to continuous population decline.

Wait, but this simply isnt true. USSR population grew continiusly until the 90iez.

The was the "war echo" in this growth, but it wasn't declining.

You cant really beat 3 year maternity leave and free kindergarder from the age of 3.

All that really worked and beinf a single mother was normalized too, because of distorted gender ratio.

[watwut]

What really worked was that people were not invested in jobs. It was dead end, you dont care, dont have ambitions and try to go home as soon as possible. The 3 year maternity leave stayed after communisms ended, free kindergarten stayed. But capitalism made the work feel less of "sleepy dead end" for everyone.

Otherwise said, people stopped having kids when economic opportunities opened up.

[Muromec]

I actually lived through the whole thing and I don't agree with your take. The hard drop in 90ies has more to do with the soviet system collapsing and taking away the floor than with capitalism opening up the top. It was a time of struggle where some more adaptable people ripped the benefits, but for everybody else it was a very tough time. Instead of working 9 to 5 and going home a lot of people had to work 2 or three jobs, drastically change their lifestyle and take the burden of care for their parents because the state basically defaulted on their pensions.

If you think that people didn't have ambitions, it's also not true. You could still climb the ladder inside the system, it's just the monetary reward was capped at having middle class-level comfort instead of being unbelievably rich. You could always be a head of something or go by the party route to have more nice things or have friends to bring stuff from the west too.

[watwut]

Childbirth did not went up all that much even as economic conditions got better. Largest driver of children in communism were really people checked out of public and professional life, retreating to hobbies and family.

Your options to climb the ladder inside the system were severely limited, especially if you was young. Communism and working in communism was sleepy and having ambitions was negative - just about the only way to use ambitions was to be political, denounce who you have to denounce and do the dirty work for the state.

> You could always be a head of something or go by the party route to have more nice things or have friends to bring stuff from the west too.

Of course that implies comfort with a lot of dirt and amorality. Yep, some people did that. Everybody knew what being party meant and some of these people are still the sleaziest politicians out there. Not everyone had stomach for that.

Plus, you could not do this if you was from the wrong family.

[defrost]

> A huge part of China's success stems from the fact that Nixon opened up U.S. markets to China, along with U.S. investment capital.

Nixon arrived a full year after Gough Whitlam established Australian-Chinese trade which prompted Henry Kissinger to take a secret visit to China to negotiate the terms for Nixon’s mission.

[pqtyw]

> develop such an enormous landmass

Why would that matter? Australia and Canada are doing reasonably well regardless of the overwhelming majority of their territories being empty "wasteland" (economically).

If anything relatively low population coupled with huge amounts of natural resources per capita is one of the best positions to be in.

>relinquish part of its global influence and territory

By in and large their relinquished the more highly populated areas not the empty ones.

[Eliah_Lakhin]

It works as long as a country primarily spends its income on internal development. Today's Russia is a relatively prosperous country with high living standards, at least in big cities. Perhaps these standards are even higher than in some EU countries. And they are certainly higher than at any point in Soviet history.

However, to a large extent, this is the result of cutting expenditures on projecting Soviet influence abroad. The Soviet Union had enormous spending on subsidizing friendly regimes and their economies around the world, as well as maintaining a military presence. The same applies to some former Soviet republics that the USSR had to subsidize for decades.

I think we are observing similar processes in the United States today. They are attempting to cut spending and perhaps even reduce their military presence simply because they cannot afford it in the long term without sacrificing their own prosperity.