I would need primary source evidence for this, but if there aren’t primary sources then it’s obviously false.

However, if there are, I still disagree with the interpretation. I doubt it was some realpolitik scheme (entirely) to do this. It was more likely that if china did not engage the Japanese now, China would be conquered by the pen, rather than by the gun. Han Suyin (biographer of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai) talks in an interview about how Chiang was often very apprehensive about fighting japan. In all seriousness Chiang needed to be captured and have his head put to a chopping block for him to agree to the chinese united front. So, again assuming the basic information presented is true, it is more likely that Stalin encouraged the fight now. Also remember that the Japanese and Soviets were engaged in broader border skirmishes. Considering the value of the siberian (for some reason this said liberian, i hate auto correct) troops during the great patriotic war, Japan not being able to invade the previously take far Easterm areas was extremely important for the people of the world.

I think a good comparison to make here would be the industrialization under the French Ancien regime and the late Qing dynasty. Or more specifically the lack there of. With mass automation, the capitalist system would fail and collapse for numerous reasons. Ergo, in order to preserve itself, the system would delay the transfer to automation the best it could and also put in quotas and such to prevent automation from becoming the dominant economic factor.

This actually is parallelled in the doctor who episode KABLAM, where an entire moon is dedicated to what is basically and amazon warehouse. A quota of 10% of workers had to be real people, despite the fact that automation was much better. However, the workers were paid pittances and treated horribly, because why wouldn’t they be? (What’s the funniest thing is that the writers think this is…good? Like, the whole system is effed up and the writers are all like “oh wow isn’t this so cool guys.” It’s hilarious.)

Well of course not, how would you go to the bathroom? (/s)

But I think it’s less “comraderly education” and more just an improvement of human psyche. Without alienation, without dependence on addiction, with better access to mental health services, etc. People will be less neurotic and anti-social. Also without the rat race and need for money then people will have no material reason for people to be paranoid and fighting for resources.

Of course culture will be naturally improved over time and that will help too, but I think the material basis here is equally if not more important

Ngl I’m not sure so I’ll name a few.

1.Im very pro-natalist. I think, under well and stable circumstances (so not china during the one china policy) people should be encouraged to have children and preferably 2 or more. Obviously there should be provisions for this to make sure it doesn’t turn criminal or get out of hand, but I think having a large and fresh young generation is very good for preventing lapses into unproductivity and conservativism. (However, abortion and such shouldn’t be criminalized, Obviously)

2.I kinda like Theodore Roosevelt, at least on a personal level. I know I know imperialist warmonger, you don’t have to remind me. But as a physically deficient near sighted kid, he really inspired me to both be more active and more curious about the world. It was kinda a never meet your heros thing, but I still have a soft spot for him

3.Up to a reasonable point, you should obey authority with little question (in day to day activity). Obviously it shouldn’t be unquestionable or unqualified (not even Confusious thought that authority should be completely unquestioned), but I always feel like getting person x the y they ask for without question makes things a lot smoother than constantly butting in, trying to wield authority ypu don’t have. I’m also a much larger fan of consistency rather than pure benefit (i.e, if one mathematics professor has a different system for notation than the rest of the field, even if that notation is better I woukd rather just be taught the consistent notation). [Side note:this makes me hate capitalism even more. Like how are you so bad that the person who bows so easily doesn’t even believe in you?]

I think very simply, the answer is that the former wanted to end socialism while the latter wanted to preserve it.

In affect, they both succeeded to a certain extent. Gorbachev admitted himself that after the secret speech (thanks Krushchev), he wanted a Nordic style social democracy, in a sense. Of course that goal wasnt achieved in Russia, but the end of socialism was successful.

In comparison, Deng Xiaoping and the CPC reiterated possibly hundreds of times that the reform and opening up was not a restoration of capitalism.

As the other commenter pointed out, this led to two very different systems. In the first, where capitalists regained control of the state, the nation’s of the USSR were drained of their resources and sent into debt, chaos, poverty and strife.

In the second, where the proletariat and communist party remained in control, the Dual track marketization and controlled development of productive forces, (albeit with some temporary setbacks intially) led to the biggest development in quality of life in human history, possibly only seconded by the socialist construction in the USSR.

There is of course the third factor that hasn’t been mentioned, which was that marketization in china was progressive in a Marxist sense.

(It’s been a while so feel free to correct me if I’m missing remembering). In his book “understanding the French revolution,” Albert Soubel describes the San Clouttes as the proto-proletariat petite Bourgeoisie, but points out how they were not necessarily the most progressive force. In order for capitalism to develop to its higher stages, the productive forces of society would have to be collectivized and centralized at least within the country. The San Clouttes fought against this, as it was not in their class interest to go from artisans and workhousemen to factory workers.

A similar situation existed in china even after the great leap forward. While China had limited markets and a fairly centralized political system, along with some industrialization in the cities, the wider economic system was decentralized into wide mostly rural communes. Without markets the communal labor and markets would have to be centralized via the political governance of the CPC, which would have been costly and unpopular. It most likely would have happened at some point, but the wish for the ascetics of communism conflicted with the actual political-economy of china.

Comparatively, the USSR had very different political-economic positions. Very simply the privatization was pointless. The most justifiable expansion of markets would have been in the light consumer goods industry in order to alleviate buercratic strain. However, instead of that, everything up to the commanding heights of heavy and resource industries were privatized and of course the entire socialist state apparatus was done away with.