From: dredmond at efn.org>
> Russia and Eastern Europe posted respectable growth rates during the
heyday of
> Communism; Mao's China, Ho's Vietnam and Fidel's Cuba accomplished great
things
> in land reform, basic industrialization and education.
The USSR yes. China still has a population which is about three quarters peasants. Since the Chinese "communists" abandoned anything which could be called communism, it has been developing rapidly, but as far as most of the population is concerned, China is not a lot more_economically_ developed than it was in 1949. That's why millions are migrating to the bigger cities and overseas. Vietnam is now heading down the same road. Castro has done remarkably well to survive politically following the collapse of Comecon, but Cuba clearly has big problems.
I would also dispute that there is anything inherently socialist/liberal/progressive about "land reform". As the modern history of (e.g.) France shows, what land reform produces, more than anything, is a class of small commodity producers dependent on state largesse and highly resistant to further "reform".
> Most of the 20th century's economic success stories (Taiwan, South Korea,
> China, Malaysia) were the product of a socialistic state apparatus
cracking
> down hard on capital, investing in brain cells, rigging local markets to
> succeed against fierce global competition, etc. The secret of the
developmental
> state is "No brain, no gain".
The Chinese communists certainly "cracked down hard" on capital. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly justify that assertion in relation to Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia. These, if they shared much in common at all, other than successful capitalist development, shared _dirigisme_. In other words, strong, capitalist states promoted some local/indigenous capitalists over others and over global capital. These policies were possible because Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia were front line states in regard to.....Chinese communism. A small number of local capitalists did very well under the umbrella of the global capitalist military alliance. Further generalisations are difficult.
Regards,
Grant.