8 ms·

USSR followed the same path when their citizens grumbled about liberalization. State owned enterprises are now seizing power from private companies and foreign

USSR followed the same path when their citizens grumbled about liberalization. State owned enterprises are now seizing power from private companies and foreign entities. Pretty soon you are going to see replays of USSR SoE dominance such as lack of innovation, bread lines, inefficient operation, and corruption. It seems xi jing ping did not fully study the downfall of USSR after all.

vkou 5y ago
I've been hearing from pundits that the collapse of China is around the corner for the past 25 years, and I have yet to see why I won't be hearing about it for the next 25.
- coolspot 5y ago
  You will not hear that because all non-sino people will be wiped out by a race-targeted virus. The Alpha version leaked, unfortunately, giving us glimpse on where they are going with the research, won’t happen again. For those who thinks my comment is outlandish: we are talking about the country that literally has concentration camps, forceful sterilization and thought police among other things.
  - reccanti 5y ago
    Not used to hacker news commenters being quite so mask-off, but I suppose it was only a matter of time
    - zo1 5y ago
      Not to be too tinfoil-hatty, but why wouldn't we at least consider the possibility of this kind of "warfare"? We accept the possibility of physical, nuclear, cyber, cultural, chemical and "deadly" bio warfare. But not soft, malicious and below the radar bio warfare that this could be? Is it because they "released" it in their own country supposedly? Anywho, I've long since realized that it's all too-easy to do both sabotage, terrorism and other evil things very easily without being caught. The fact that it doesn't happen fairly regularly on a grand scale that brings society to a halt though makes we wonder if there are an appreciable amount of such evil people that are willing or incentivized to do those evil acts. A sort of "Drake equation" look at it, I guess.
      - kragen 5y ago
        At some point in the future it might become possible to design viruses that target human genotypes with great selectivity, and at that point this will become a risk. But we are a long, long way from that future, and even then most people's circle of concern includes significant genetic variation, so very few people could release a virus designed to kill, say, all Slavic people, without killing at least a few of their own close friends and family members. Historically, biological warfare research has focused on pathogens like anthrax that have very low human-to-human transmission risk, for two reasons. One is that, if your germ-warfare bomb starts an epidemic, it barely matters which sides of the battle lines it falls on; if it thins your own ranks less than those of the enemy, it's only because your troops (and their families dying back home) are in better condition or have better sanitary measures in place. The other is that, if you can't stop the deaths when the enemy surrenders, the germ-warfare bomb doesn't give the enemy any incentive to surrender. Evil things do happen fairly regularly on a grand scale. But doing things on a grand scale has historically required a centralized government to organize them. That's still true for a little while longer.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  They've been saying it since 1949. Now China is the world's second (first on some measures) largest economy, and they sent a rover to Mars and are building a space station. I had occasion to read some New York Times newspapers from 1917 and 1918, and they were filled with stories about how Mr. Lenine's (sic) government was about to fall if not already in flight. Off the mark by 70 years or so, and Russia is still run by former CP nomenklatura.
SubiculumCode 5y ago
This analogy works on a few levels, but not in others. One key differences between the USSR and China is that the USSR did not have a close economic relationship with the U.S., nor an economy near parity to the U.S.'s. There might be a decline of Chinese power, but it will not take a similar path, imo.
- itmayno 5y ago
  Agreed that it’s not exactly the same scenarios. However US is actively disengaging from China. And as far as economy parity I think that may never be as China is on a downward trajectory while US is going up. And lots of china’s numbers are fabricated.
ecshafer 5y ago
The causes of the downfall of the USSR seems to always line up with whatever political angle the writer has. Leftwing can point to a lack of (political) liberalization or poor planning, rightwing can point to not going further on (economic) liberalization. It's a topic that is really valuable to think tanks based on their politics and their donor's politics.
- nickff 5y ago
  Most people in the West (both left and right-wing) thought the USSR was much more economically productive than it actually was, and that the populace was more supportive of the regime than was the case. The Chinese learned very valuable lessons from the USSR, namely that liberalization is very dangerous for a regime; North Korea has done much worse (economically) than the USSR, but is very politically stable. I am not sure how earlier political liberalization could have saved the USSR, which was essentially a (communist) imperialist dictatorship.
  - avmich 5y ago
    > North Korea has done much worse (economically) than the USSR, but is very politically stable. NK doesn't go to wars outside it. And they have support of China. This surely supports a long term stability... but how much of a long term, remains to be seen.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  The USSR economy did pretty well under Stalin, especially during the Depression that affected the west. Khrushchev deprioritized capital expenditures and that was the beginning of the end. Similar story in the DDR around the time of Stalin's death.
  - georgeecollins 5y ago
    No, that is completely wrong that the USSR economy did well during the depression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor There are many other sources / economists who will support that, wikipedia is just the fastest. Stalin's government did do a great job of ramping up industrial production before and during WW2.
thombee 5y ago
Do you really think that the Chinese government have not studied the causes and effects of the ussr collapse enough? The other large communist nation who was also their neighbour? Or is this just some weird rhetoric you're using
moltar 5y ago
USSR didn’t have private enterprises and thus no markets. There was no competition.
- lycopodiopsida 5y ago
  Actually, it did: it was called "NEP"[1] and was used to reboot the economics after the revolution and civil war. Afterwards the control of all economic matters was ceased again by the goverment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

vkou 5y ago

I've been hearing from pundits that the collapse of China is around the corner for the past 25 years, and I have yet to see why I won't be hearing about it for the next 25.

coolspot 5y ago
You will not hear that because all non-sino people will be wiped out by a race-targeted virus. The Alpha version leaked, unfortunately, giving us glimpse on where they are going with the research, won’t happen again. For those who thinks my comment is outlandish: we are talking about the country that literally has concentration camps, forceful sterilization and thought police among other things.
- reccanti 5y ago
  Not used to hacker news commenters being quite so mask-off, but I suppose it was only a matter of time
  - zo1 5y ago
    Not to be too tinfoil-hatty, but why wouldn't we at least consider the possibility of this kind of "warfare"? We accept the possibility of physical, nuclear, cyber, cultural, chemical and "deadly" bio warfare. But not soft, malicious and below the radar bio warfare that this could be? Is it because they "released" it in their own country supposedly? Anywho, I've long since realized that it's all too-easy to do both sabotage, terrorism and other evil things very easily without being caught. The fact that it doesn't happen fairly regularly on a grand scale that brings society to a halt though makes we wonder if there are an appreciable amount of such evil people that are willing or incentivized to do those evil acts. A sort of "Drake equation" look at it, I guess.
    - kragen 5y ago
      At some point in the future it might become possible to design viruses that target human genotypes with great selectivity, and at that point this will become a risk. But we are a long, long way from that future, and even then most people's circle of concern includes significant genetic variation, so very few people could release a virus designed to kill, say, all Slavic people, without killing at least a few of their own close friends and family members. Historically, biological warfare research has focused on pathogens like anthrax that have very low human-to-human transmission risk, for two reasons. One is that, if your germ-warfare bomb starts an epidemic, it barely matters which sides of the battle lines it falls on; if it thins your own ranks less than those of the enemy, it's only because your troops (and their families dying back home) are in better condition or have better sanitary measures in place. The other is that, if you can't stop the deaths when the enemy surrenders, the germ-warfare bomb doesn't give the enemy any incentive to surrender. Evil things do happen fairly regularly on a grand scale. But doing things on a grand scale has historically required a centralized government to organize them. That's still true for a little while longer.
VictorPath 5y ago
They've been saying it since 1949. Now China is the world's second (first on some measures) largest economy, and they sent a rover to Mars and are building a space station. I had occasion to read some New York Times newspapers from 1917 and 1918, and they were filled with stories about how Mr. Lenine's (sic) government was about to fall if not already in flight. Off the mark by 70 years or so, and Russia is still run by former CP nomenklatura.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

This analogy works on a few levels, but not in others. One key differences between the USSR and China is that the USSR did not have a close economic relationship with the U.S., nor an economy near parity to the U.S.'s. There might be a decline of Chinese power, but it will not take a similar path, imo.

itmayno 5y ago
Agreed that it’s not exactly the same scenarios. However US is actively disengaging from China. And as far as economy parity I think that may never be as China is on a downward trajectory while US is going up. And lots of china’s numbers are fabricated.

ecshafer 5y ago

The causes of the downfall of the USSR seems to always line up with whatever political angle the writer has. Leftwing can point to a lack of (political) liberalization or poor planning, rightwing can point to not going further on (economic) liberalization. It's a topic that is really valuable to think tanks based on their politics and their donor's politics.

nickff 5y ago
Most people in the West (both left and right-wing) thought the USSR was much more economically productive than it actually was, and that the populace was more supportive of the regime than was the case. The Chinese learned very valuable lessons from the USSR, namely that liberalization is very dangerous for a regime; North Korea has done much worse (economically) than the USSR, but is very politically stable. I am not sure how earlier political liberalization could have saved the USSR, which was essentially a (communist) imperialist dictatorship.
- avmich 5y ago
  > North Korea has done much worse (economically) than the USSR, but is very politically stable. NK doesn't go to wars outside it. And they have support of China. This surely supports a long term stability... but how much of a long term, remains to be seen.
VictorPath 5y ago
The USSR economy did pretty well under Stalin, especially during the Depression that affected the west. Khrushchev deprioritized capital expenditures and that was the beginning of the end. Similar story in the DDR around the time of Stalin's death.
- georgeecollins 5y ago
  No, that is completely wrong that the USSR economy did well during the depression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor There are many other sources / economists who will support that, wikipedia is just the fastest. Stalin's government did do a great job of ramping up industrial production before and during WW2.

thombee 5y ago

Do you really think that the Chinese government have not studied the causes and effects of the ussr collapse enough? The other large communist nation who was also their neighbour? Or is this just some weird rhetoric you're using

moltar 5y ago

USSR didn’t have private enterprises and thus no markets. There was no competition.

lycopodiopsida 5y ago
Actually, it did: it was called "NEP"[1] and was used to reboot the economics after the revolution and civil war. Afterwards the control of all economic matters was ceased again by the goverment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy