Economics Discussion Thread

[Hydesland]

I mean, if you had tried to apply that logic in literally any other historical period except for today or the recent past, it would have led you to conclude that you should support colonial empires, or slavery, or various other such practices that were done by "the most successful countries" between 1500 and the early 1900s.

I don't mean "successful" as in economically powerful and large, I mean as in the highest and most equitable standards of living. So if you're holding lots of slaves, that would not be a high or fair standard of living for many of the residents, would it.

[Constantinopolis]

I mean, if you had tried to apply that logic in literally any other historical period except for today or the recent past, it would have led you to conclude that you should support colonial empires, or slavery, or various other such practices that were done by "the most successful countries" between 1500 and the early 1900s.

I don't mean "successful" as in economically powerful and large, I mean as in the highest and most equitable standards of living. So if you're holding lots of slaves, that would not be a high or fair standard of living for many of the residents, would it.

But the slave-holding European and American powers were also the countries with the highest standards of living in the world at the time, by far. So even when you account for the slaves, which brings down the average living standard, that still leaves those same countries as the "most successful".

Also, since the slaves weren't in Europe, they weren't technically located in Spain or Britain or France, so a defender of the status quo at the time could tout the high living standards in the imperial home countries themselves and say that the slaves shouldn't count against that because they were somewhere else under a different jurisdiction.

In other words:

"Look at how successful Britain is under the wise rule of King George! Our people have the highest living standards."
"But what about all your slaves? Their living standards are awful. So, on average, the British living standard isn't as high as you say."
"Irrelevant. The slaves are in Jamaica and other shitty backwaters like that. I'm talking about glorious Britain. People HERE have amazing living standards, don't they?"

You know... in the exact same way that defenders of the present-day status quo tout the high living standards in the First World countries and say that the impoverished working masses of the Third World shouldn't count against that because they are somewhere else under a different jurisdiction. Even though the First World and Third World today are even more economically linked than the British mainland and its colony of Jamaica in 1800.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The largest colonial empires (Spain, Portugal) were quite a bit poorer than Britain and the Netherlands--and it was clear where that wealth came from (commercial expansion) rather than from slavery or holding the Best Colonies.

[Constantinopolis]

The largest colonial empires (Spain, Portugal) were quite a bit poorer than Britain and the Netherlands--and it was clear where that wealth came from (commercial expansion) rather than from slavery or holding the Best Colonies.

You've missed the point. I'm not arguing that wealth was solely due to slavery or colonialism, or that it was proportional to how much a country engaged in those practices. Of course it wasn't.

I'm pointing out that in every single historical period, the most successful countries did horrible things that no one believes we should emulate.

My argument is that there is no logical connection between the observation "country X is successful" and the conclusion "we should do what country X does". Maybe we should, or maybe we shouldn't. It depends on other factors.

[The Liberated Territories]

The largest colonial empires (Spain, Portugal) were quite a bit poorer than Britain and the Netherlands--and it was clear where that wealth came from (commercial expansion) rather than from slavery or holding the Best Colonies.

You've missed the point. I'm not arguing that wealth was solely due to slavery or colonialism, or that it was proportional to how much a country engaged in those practices. Of course it wasn't.

I'm pointing out that in every single historical period, the most successful countries did horrible things that no one believes we should emulate.

My argument is that there is no logical connection between the observation "country X is successful" and the conclusion "we should do what country X does". Maybe we should, or maybe we shouldn't. It depends on other factors.

Fair. Then we all must admit there is no correlation between "capitalism" and "owning slaves or establishing colonies" as no proponent of the former wants to emulate the latter either.

[Constantinopolis]

You've missed the point. I'm not arguing that wealth was solely due to slavery or colonialism, or that it was proportional to how much a country engaged in those practices. Of course it wasn't.

I'm pointing out that in every single historical period, the most successful countries did horrible things that no one believes we should emulate.

My argument is that there is no logical connection between the observation "country X is successful" and the conclusion "we should do what country X does". Maybe we should, or maybe we shouldn't. It depends on other factors.

Fair. Then we all must admit there is no correlation between "capitalism" and "owning slaves or establishing colonies" as no proponent of the former wants to emulate the latter either.

Sure.

My argument was literally based on the assumption that everyone today would agree that slavery and colonialism were bad things. That's why I picked those examples, so that I would have unambiguously evil things as examples. I was assuming that capitalists would agree with me in condemning "owning slaves or establishing colonies". Based on this, I would then be able to say "so you see, you do condemn the things that were done by the most successful countries for a long time, so you can't say that being successful is always an indication of being right". Which was my argument.

[The Liberated Territories]

Fair. Then we all must admit there is no correlation between "capitalism" and "owning slaves or establishing colonies" as no proponent of the former wants to emulate the latter either.

Sure...?

My argument was literally based on the assumption that everyone today would agree that slavery and colonialism were bad things. That's why I picked those examples, so that I would have unambiguously evil things as examples. I was assuming that capitalists would agree with me in condemning "owning slaves or establishing colonies". Based on this, I would then be able to say "so you see, you do condemn the things that were done by the most successful countries for a along time, so you can't say that being successful is always an indication of being right". Which was my argument.

Except no one is saying that these countries were successful because of slavery, or establishing colonies. That is Tahei's point too I believe. Colonialism was actually a net loss on the British.

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-ca ... lonialism/

It's also is a manner of "successful at what?" I can say the British were economically successful at home, but they put up restrctions and enacted tariffs that kept their colonies worse off than them. Hence a good impetus for the American Revolution.

[Constantinopolis]

Sure...?

My argument was literally based on the assumption that everyone today would agree that slavery and colonialism were bad things. That's why I picked those examples, so that I would have unambiguously evil things as examples. I was assuming that capitalists would agree with me in condemning "owning slaves or establishing colonies". Based on this, I would then be able to say "so you see, you do condemn the things that were done by the most successful countries for a along time, so you can't say that being successful is always an indication of being right". Which was my argument.

Except no one is saying that these countries were successful because of slavery, or establishing colonies. That is Tahei's point too I believe. Colonialism was actually a net loss on the British.

These countries were capitalist because of slavery and establishing colonies. Initial wealth was provided by slavery and colonialism, and then later wealth began to be accumulated through other means, and yes, by the 20th century colonialism had become a net drain on the (now-highly-industrial) British economy.

If capitalism is like a house, slavery and colonialism are like the foundation upon which the house was built. You are saying "look, how much wealth is in the house has nothing to do with the foundation". And I am saying "sure, but without the foundation you wouldn't have a house in the first place".

But this, of course, has nothing to do with the argument I made earlier. I wasn't originally condemning capitalists for slavery or colonialism, and I'm still not doing that (the causation goes the other way: slavery and colonialism caused capitalism).

I should also clarify that when I'm talking about "colonialism" causing capitalism, I am referring to the "first wave" of European colonialism, that lasted from the 1500s to the early 1800s, and was focused mainly on coastal regions, and in which the Atlantic Slave Trade played a major part. I am not talking about the "second wave" of colonialism (or imperialism) that began in the second half of the 19th century, was focused much more on controlling the interior of Africa and other regions, and was driven by different economic imperatives. The first wave of colonialism gave birth to capitalism. The second wave was an outgrowth of capitalism, and we Marxists prefer to refer to this second wave as "imperialism" in order to distinguish it from the "colonialism" of the first wave.

[Constantinopolis]

And the BBC has an extremely informative documentary series on how the profits from slave ownership benefited the British economy and enriched "ordinary people" all over Britain. (actually they were upper-middle class people, and would soon become the basis of the new capitalist ruling class)

[Hydesland]

But the slave-holding European and American powers were also the countries with the highest standards of living in the world at the time, by far. So even when you account for the slaves, which brings down the average living standard, that still leaves those same countries as the "most successful".

Sure if you use the most simplistic utilitarian measure of welfare possible, but who says I'm doing that?

Also, since the slaves weren't in Europe, they weren't technically located in Spain or Britain or France, so a defender of the status quo at the time could tout the high living standards in the imperial home countries themselves and say that the slaves shouldn't count against that because they were somewhere else under a different jurisdiction.

I think you're just being obtuse now - if companies are relying on slavery, I would not call that a successful system, no matter where the slaves are located.

In other words:

"Look at how successful Britain is under the wise rule of King George! Our people have the highest living standards."
"But what about all your slaves? Their living standards are awful. So, on average, the British living standard isn't as high as you say."
"Irrelevant. The slaves are in Jamaica and other shitty backwaters like that. I'm talking about glorious Britain. People HERE have amazing living standards, don't they?"

In other words you're making some strawman argument I never advocated.

You know... in the exact same way that defenders of the present-day status quo tout the high living standards in the First World countries and say that the impoverished working masses of the Third World shouldn't count against that because they are somewhere else under a different jurisdiction. Even though the First World and Third World today are even more economically linked than the British mainland and its colony of Jamaica in 1800.

If the success of *all* possible first world countries rest entirely on there existing many impoverished people in the third world (it doesn't), then the situation might be equivalent.

[Great Minarchistan]

FINALLY A SANE THREAD

[Great Minarchistan]

Capitalism was great

Wew.

because it eventually led to the Industrial Revolution and has generally increased most peoples' quality of life (albeit only with the aim of maximizing profit), but even in its salad days, the reality of unmitigated, laissez-faire economics constantly reared its ugly head.

Funny how you praise Industrial Revolution while bashing laissez-faire economics on the same sentence. That's basically spitting on the plate you eat from.

If you read a highschool history book

HS History books are often illiterate, economically speaking. Sadly the economy in the past is either studied by historians that don't understand economics, or economists that don't understand history.

I'm sure you're well-aware of how workers fought tooth and nail for safety regulations and the eight-hour workday;

In vain. Weekly hours fell naturally over the time. Even under the so-feared deunionization from the workers, worktime fell.

things that greatly improve QoL for the average individual, but are unprofitable to the capitalist class.

Not at all. Truth be said, Henry Ford was one of the industry owners that instituted a 40-hour work week before regulations that did that exist (and he was rather late since reductions like those happened at the start of 1900s, while Ford enacted such measure in 1926). And why? Because of competition and to improve the worker's productivity.

What's more, capitalism actually limits the development and deployment of new technologies due to them not being profitable; see for example, planned obsolescence

Caused mainly because government stimulated the consumer credit so much that people can easily buy things through loans. In fact, personal savings rate started to fall "mysteriously" in the 1960s-70s until they reached the current level (that is almost the lowest one in US' history).

Furthermore I'd advise you look into the labor history of the United States

What about it?

food deserts

They affect "only" 7.4% of the population. In either way, many of those are relieved by programs like SNAP.

the Great Moderation

The same one that was achieved under Early America and that was mysteriously vanished thanks to Fed's implementation?

the presidency of Herbert Hoover (particularly his economic policies)

The same guy that enacted Smoot-Hawley Tariff, jawboned with big businesses and started mastodonic public works that ended up deepening and delaying the recovery from 1929 crisis (that was caused by the government)?

and the context for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal".

The same ineffective New Deal that barely recovered the economy?

All searchable on Wikipedia of course.

I hope you also use sources like FRED and Trading Economics instead of believing everything Wikipedia tells you.

[Barbarossistan]

Capitalism a result of colonialism?

Nonsense

Capitalism, as in private ownership of means of production, market-based exchange and wage labor developed during the middle ages, long before colonialism became a thing.

the capital accumulation process was well under way by 1100

And if you mean industrial capitalism, how would you explain that this spread from Britain not to the nations with the great colonial empires but to Belgium and the Ruhr, territories that had little to do with colonialism and had been largely excluded from overseas trade.

And capitalism has proven very effective at the capital accumulation process that is essential to rising productivity and thus rising standards of living. Planned economies cant keep up, the Comecon group fell further and further behind in the quality and quantity of consumer and capital goods. Their agriculture was too inefficient to reliably feed their own population, despite control of much of the best agricultural land in the world. Only the armaments sector was competitive, and even there the larger and more rapidly growing industrial base of the West would be a problem in a long war, the Soviets had not forgotten US WWII mobilization.

As for the Irish famine, you do realize that this was largely an effect of the Corn Laws that banned traders from doing what they would have loved to do, selling imported foodstuffs to the Irish. And if you think people should sometimes be given aid for free, many people including me think that should be done at times, capitalism will not stop you. Instead it will happily give you access to greater resources then other systems have proven able to produce.

Capitalism rewards capital formation as those who form capital can benefit from it, thus more capital formation happens. You would seize the benefits of capital and thus capital formation will end unless your central planner uses force to make it happen, Comrade Stalin has shown how its done, and Soviet industry was paid for in blood when capitalism would have gotten more industry at a lower price.

Capitalism also rewards contributing to available resources as those who contribute are given money they can then use too obtain resources they want. (yes, yes, the process of obtaining money is rather more complex and in lots of cases involves all sorts of dishonesty and use of force, but thats not a capitalism-specific problem)

[Constantinopolis]

Capitalism a result of colonialism?

Nonsense

Capitalism, as in private ownership of means of production, market-based exchange and wage labor developed during the middle ages, long before colonialism became a thing.

And there I was thinking that medieval Europe was a feudal society where the vast majority of people were peasants - often serfs - working on their lord's estate, and paid not in money but in a share of the crop. Tell me more about how medieval people were actually employees in private businesses instead.

the capital accumulation process was well under way by 1100

Well, strictly speaking, capital accumulation has been going on in one form or another since human beings first decided to settle down in one place and build permanent structures (which are a form of capital) instead of living a nomadic lifestyle.

But the specific accumulation of capital that gave birth to capitalism in Europe was absolutely due to slavery and colonialism. I recommend the seminal book Capitalism and Slavery to learn more. As the Amazon blurb says: "Slavery helped finance the Industrial Revolution in England. Plantation owners, shipbuilders, and merchants connected with the slave trade accumulated vast fortunes that established banks and heavy industry in Europe and expanded the reach of capitalism worldwide."

And if you mean industrial capitalism,

Capitalism is by definition an industrial and post-industrial mode of production. If a society is not at least in the process of industrializing (if not already industrial), then it can't be capitalist.

And if you mean industrial capitalism, how would you explain that this spread from Britain not to the nations with the great colonial empires but to Belgium and the Ruhr, territories that had little to do with colonialism and had been largely excluded from overseas trade.

As I said, the role of the slave trade and the colonial empires was to enrich the individuals who became the first capitalists in Europe. Once the wealth from slavery got to Europe, it wasn't nailed down in any one particular country. It moved across borders. Individuals who got rich from the colonies could, and did, finance business ventures in countries that had nothing to do with colonialism.

Asking how could capitalism be founded on colonialism when it expanded so much in Belgium and the Ruhr is like asking how could Walmart be an American company when it expanded so much in China. The fact that it expanded into China doesn't negate the fact that it was started with American capital. Likewise, the fact that capitalism spread to places that had nothing to do with colonialism doesn't negate the fact that it was started with capital accumulated from the slave trade. Capital can move.

And capitalism has proven very effective at the capital accumulation process that is essential to rising productivity and thus rising standards of living. Planned economies cant keep up, the Comecon group fell further and further behind in the quality and quantity of consumer and capital goods.

They didn't "fall behind", they started out far behind the industrialized West in the first place, and were doing as good as (or even better than) a large number of capitalist countries that had also started in a similar position behind the industrialized West.

For example, earlier in this thread, Taihei Tengoku himself was saying that the Soviet Union "started the same as Mexico and ended up the same as Mexico" (in terms of GDP per capita). He meant that as an argument against the USSR, and he was being disingenuous (because the Soviet Union only ended up the same as Mexico due to the sharp downturn in 1989-91 after Gorbachev's market reforms), but in any case, the point is that even if we go by what anti-communists say, the performance of the planned economies was comparable to that of middle-of-the-road capitalist economies.

Central planning only failed if you count being somewhere around the global economic average as a failure.

So for those of us who consider socialism to be an inherent moral good, we look at it this way: If we can have a society where people are mostly equal, where exploitation and profit-seeking do not exist, where all basic necessities are met for everyone, where all able-bodied people have jobs, where the state takes care of the young, the elderly and the infirm, and where the dominant culture promotes cooperation and serving the common good instead of competition and selfishness - if we can have this kind of society and still get at least an average, middle-of-the-road rate of economic growth to go along with it - then that is as close to utopia as we're ever likely to get in this world. If that kind of society is possible, then it is worth fighting for. It is worth every sacrifice. It is worth going to war for.

And while the USSR was not that kind of society in itself, it got close enough to show us that it is possible to have that kind of society.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The USSR did no better than, and probably worse, than the Tsars would have.

[Janszoonia]

The USSR did no better than, and probably worse, than the Tsars would have.

>The USSR ended starvation
And then brought it back.

>Everything would have been fine without Stalin

No, it would not have.

>Lenin ended Russia's involvement in WW1

With defeat, even though Russia was on the winning side.

>The Soviets ended disease and educated everyone

Hardly.

>Everyone had a home.

Commieblocks.

>The USSR went to space.

The capitalist United States went to the moon, and a private company, SpaceX could make it to Mars.

>The Soviets won the Great Patriotic War.

Only because the west opened a second front against Germany.

>The fall of the Soviet Union was the worst event in the 20th century.

No, it's rise was.

[Constantinopolis]

The USSR did no better than, and probably worse, than the Tsars would have.

I don't understand why you think this is an argument against socialism. To me, it's an argument for socialism. Because socialism is an inherent good in and of itself. So if we can have socialism and still get more-or-less the same economic growth that we would have had without it, then we have gained socialism and lost nothing. So it's a net improvement.

Given that socialism is an inherent good, it would even be worth sacrificing other policy goals (up to a point, of course) in order to get socialism. If it turns out that we don't have to sacrifice anything, that's a huge argument for socialism in my book.

[Republican Corentia]

The USSR did no better than, and probably worse, than the Tsars would have.

>The USSR ended starvation
And then brought it back.

>Everything would have been fine without Stalin

No, it would not have.

>Lenin ended Russia's involvement in WW1

With defeat, even though Russia was on the winning side.

>The Soviets ended disease and educated everyone

Hardly.

>Everyone had a home.

Commieblocks.

>The USSR went to space.

The capitalist United States went to the moon, and a private company, SpaceX could make it to Mars.

>The Soviets won the Great Patriotic War.

Only because the west opened a second front against Germany.

>The fall of the Soviet Union was the worst event in the 20th century.

No, it's rise was.

Wow communism BTFO

Look at these good arguments. wtf i love capitalism now

[Taihei Tengoku]

The USSR did no better than, and probably worse, than the Tsars would have.

I don't understand why you think this is an argument against socialism. To me, it's an argument for socialism. Because socialism is an inherent good in and of itself. So if we can have socialism and still get more-or-less the same economic growth that we would have had without it, then we have gained socialism and lost nothing. So it's a net improvement.

Given that socialism is an inherent good, it would even be worth sacrificing other policy goals (up to a point, of course) in order to get socialism. If it turns out that we don't have to sacrifice anything, that's a huge argument for socialism in my book.

If you accept socialism is good then of course socialism is good, that's tautological.

That being said there were real sacrifices--speaking of raw gee dee pee Russia took at least twenty, more likely fifty, years to recover to the trendline, and it did this over several dozen million corpses. Of course you would view this as a worthy sacrifice however, they had it coming for being kulaks or Ukrainians.

[Taihei Tengoku]

also inherent goods dont exist

[Constantinopolis]

also inherent goods dont exist

If past debates are any indication, most of NSG considers democracy to be an inherent good, to such an extent that I'm widely considered an authoritarian for holding the belief that dictatorship can sometimes be a second best alternative.

Most people hold ideological values that they consider to be inherently good in and of themselves (that is to say, things that you'd still consider to be good even if they had bad consequences - the way most people consider democracy to be good even if horrible leaders get elected, or the way some consider gun rights to be inherently good no matter how many people get shot).

I consider socialism to be an inherent good because I hold that equality, economic justice, lack of exploitation, and the state taking care of people, are inherently good things.

I don't expect you to agree with me that socialism is such an inherent good, of course. Hell, you probably think that capitalism or "individual rights" are an inherent good. When we reach the point where we disagree about basic moral values, we've basically reached the end of the debate. There's not much more that can be said after the realization that "what you consider to be good is not what I consider to be good".

[Taihei Tengoku]

also inherent goods dont exist

If past debates are any indication, most of NSG considers democracy to be an inherent good, to such an extent that I'm widely considered an authoritarian for holding the belief that dictatorship can sometimes be a second best alternative.

Most people hold ideological values that they consider to be inherently good in and of themselves (that is to say, things that you'd still consider to be good even if they had bad consequences - the way most people consider democracy to be good even if horrible leaders get elected, or the way some consider gun rights to be inherently good no matter how many people get shot).

I consider socialism to be an inherent good because I hold that equality, economic justice, lack of exploitation, and the state taking care of people, are inherently good things.

I don't expect you to agree with me that socialism is such an inherent good, of course. Hell, you probably think that capitalism or "individual rights" are an inherent good. When we reach the point where we disagree about basic moral values, we've basically reached the end of the debate. There's not much more that can be said after the realization that "what you consider to be good is not what I consider to be good".

Most of NSG is wrong so by Bayesian probability...

If you are a strict utilitarian you would be a capitalist roader. The Chinese, wisest of all communists, realized this.

[Republican Corentia]

If past debates are any indication, most of NSG considers democracy to be an inherent good, to such an extent that I'm widely considered an authoritarian for holding the belief that dictatorship can sometimes be a second best alternative.

Most people hold ideological values that they consider to be inherently good in and of themselves (that is to say, things that you'd still consider to be good even if they had bad consequences - the way most people consider democracy to be good even if horrible leaders get elected, or the way some consider gun rights to be inherently good no matter how many people get shot).

I consider socialism to be an inherent good because I hold that equality, economic justice, lack of exploitation, and the state taking care of people, are inherently good things.

I don't expect you to agree with me that socialism is such an inherent good, of course. Hell, you probably think that capitalism or "individual rights" are an inherent good. When we reach the point where we disagree about basic moral values, we've basically reached the end of the debate. There's not much more that can be said after the realization that "what you consider to be good is not what I consider to be good".

Most of NSG is wrong so by Bayesian probability...

If you are a strict utilitarian you would be a capitalist roader. The Chinese, wisest of all communists, realized this.

I don't see where he said he was a "strict utilitarian" but:

one could very easily make a utilitarian argument against capitalism especially when comparing what socialist countries had before they implemented socialism, and what they now currently have under capitalism which is in many ways "worse" economically and socially for very many people. Your reasoning for suggesting that utilitarianism would lead one to become capitalists because "the Chinese" apparently "realized this" (all of your comments thus far have been without substance and very vague) doesn't really hold any merit

[Taihei Tengoku]

Most of NSG is wrong so by Bayesian probability...

If you are a strict utilitarian you would be a capitalist roader. The Chinese, wisest of all communists, realized this.

I don't see where he said he was a "strict utilitarian" but:

one could very easily make a utilitarian argument against capitalism especially when comparing what socialist countries had before they implemented socialism, and what they now currently have under capitalism which is in many ways "worse" economically and socially for very many people. Your reasoning for suggesting that utilitarianism would lead one to become capitalists because "the Chinese" apparently "realized this" (all of your comments thus far have been without substance and very vague) doesn't really hold any merit

? there is no strict utilitarian argument for socialism. Retaining the Tsar would've made the most Russians the best off--the one part of Russia where the Whites won (Finland) is the only part of it that is first-world. Taiwan outperforms the mainland on all metrices of human well-being. Was Mao really worth it? Those who threw out the Gang of Four didn't think so.

[Republican Corentia]

I don't see where he said he was a "strict utilitarian" but:

one could very easily make a utilitarian argument against capitalism especially when comparing what socialist countries had before they implemented socialism, and what they now currently have under capitalism which is in many ways "worse" economically and socially for very many people. Your reasoning for suggesting that utilitarianism would lead one to become capitalists because "the Chinese" apparently "realized this" (all of your comments thus far have been without substance and very vague) doesn't really hold any merit

? there is no strict utilitarian argument for socialism. Retaining the Tsar would've made Russia better off--the one part of Russia where the Whites won (Finland) is the only part of it that is first-world. Taiwan outperforms the mainland on all metrices of human well-being. Was Mao really worth it? Those who threw out the Gang of Four didn't think so.

I didn't know utilitarianism relied on pure speculation, but alright, you're wrong either way. The Tsarist government kept millions in poverty so severe that it could rival what we would expect in the third world, was regularly involved in violence against its' own citizens on account of their fight against their terrible conditions, kept Russia economically and technologically backward compared to Europe, etc. The post-Soviet states that exist today are sufferers of an influx in foreign capital and exploitative economics which are natural under capitalism, a system which seeks to expand wherever it can like a cancer. There was room after the Soviet Union to do this - unions, healthcare, education, etc. It all withered away and suffered.

China, too, suffers the same problem. China hasn't pursued an explicitly communist line since Mao, but nonetheless the greatest periods of economic recovery, improvements in literacy, and living standards were under him. It's also worthwhile to mention Taiwan gets special treatment from the U.S. like Cuba, or the USSR, or Cuba, or Nicaragua, or any socialist state for that matter. Except all those I just listed except for Taiwan get the economic embargo and sabotage special treatment.