With the right factors in place could the Soviet economy have became a rival to the US in a way which China is right now?
I'm no expert but assuming there's some PoD that prevents Soviet collapse and that they manage to get even >0% GDP growth (or rather just enough to mitigate the loss of the Baltics I guess) from 1989 to today they'd have a GDP of ~2.6 trillion in 1989 dollars, which when adjusted for inflation (assuming that's how it works, I'm no economist) gives them a GDP of ~5.4 trillion in 2019 dollars, making them a distant third behind China and the US. So I'd assume if you did some more drastic PoD that mitigates the economic stagnation under Brezhnev and/or later stagnation in the late 80s they'd absolutely be a significant player in the world economy today. Whether or not they'd actually be able to seriously compete with the US/China is another issue entirely though.
It depends on relations, it's actually possible China end up in the Soviet supply chain just as it for americaWould a surviving economically dominant USSR have had any impact on whether China would still rise as an economic power?
you would have seen a more diversified economy,
Not really. As a civil war basket case replicating China under (probably) French and US capitalism the warlord states post USSR would have been monolithically agrarian. The NEP headed off a nasty third revolution where the urban workers were intent on grain even at the cost of liquidating the nomenklatura. If Stalin doesn’t tail end the Ural Siberian method, the party will be (once again) at war with the proletariat—and less likely to survive this time.
Rural labourerbook titles for the hammond and hammond? legit curious
You’ve been repeatedly referred to Hammond and Hammond. Have Making of the English Working class for dessert.
All industrializations are based on mass empoverishment. Ask the Japanese peasants on factory ships, Indian peasants, or black and Irish Americans.
Yes, the only way forward was theft. Somehow the US, GB, France, Germany, Italy and a whole host of other countries were able to transform from agriculture to industry without a "scissors crisis" but somehow the USSR was virtually the only country in history to suffer one. It couldn't possibly be the result of their own policies, could it?
In GDP per Capita, why not?
If the New Economic Policy of the 1920's had been allowed to continue, you would have seen a more diversified economy, with a somewhat better chance to compete with the USA. Stalin quashed the NEP in the late 1920's.
With the right factors in place could the Soviet economy have became a rival to the US in a way which China is right now?
The West German government refused to recognize the land gained by the Poles and Soviets around this time. I also don't see why the Us would give swathes of aid to the Soviets. After all, the Soviets already too, all the industry of Eastern Europe they wanted, as well as getting half the reperations from the Rhur. And then of course there is how the Soviets got literal fleets worth of aid, which they denied being given and which they didn't pay for, unlike everyone else.Beria wanted to normalize relationships with the West and he apparently wanted to do a lot of Gorvachev-like reforms, when it actually could had worked.
So say Beria takes over and hands over East Germany in return for Marshall Plan level of aid. This combined with Gorbachev style reforms might do the trick.