Why do people use the industrialization and subsequent rise of the standard of living in Russia and China as proof of the success of socialism when neither countries were and are socialist. Socialism being defined as worker ownership of the means of production, as Marx defined, as opposed to state ownership and in the case of modern China with large parts of the economy privately owned. The success for these two countries is a testament to there size, abundance of resources and people. Germany was afraid of pre-revoultionary Russia and predicted by 1917 they would be no match for its growing might. China before the Second Sino-Japanese war was a lot more industrialized than people usually give it credit for, with most of its industrial base being destroyed by the war. And too give examples of two capitalist countries that being the United States and Germany. Both of them were able to surpass the United Kingdom due there larger access to resources and people. And not to mention the increased development of technology allowing industrializeing nations to catch up faster to their established piers. What allowed these countries to industrialize in the first place is a stable government and there ability to fight off foreign threats, which was not the case for Imperial Russia, Qing China and the ROC.
3 posts and 3 image replies omitted.>>2576609>Muh inefficiency because no le property rightsWhy are you reading that garbage?
>socialism is when industry
>>2576615I wanted to read what neoliberals were saying early into Russia's privatization. A lot of pure ideological garbage. Neoliberalism is pure brain rot.
>>2576332Saudi Arabia does human trafficking and uses slave labor in their mega projects, plus uses women as sex slaves to do scat porn.
Imperial Japan killed 30 million people in WW2 and did human experimentation.