AHC: By 2000 Chinese communist party has collapsed and USSR is a rising economic superpower

I would put this in the category of possible but improbable. My basic skepticism is that I think it will be very difficult for any authoritarian government to generate the type of growth you are suggesting. I think if you have Kosygin push toward a mixed economy in the 60s and then have comprehensive political and economic reform in the 80s you could actually get some fairly significant growth in the 80s and 90s. This is broadly the South Korea ("ROK") model. In the 1960s-70s the ROK had a vicious, corrupt authoritarian government. They pursue managed capitalism in the 60s and 70s and begin political and economic reform in the 1980s. Their growth really takes off in the late 80s so that today the GDP of the RPK is about half that of the US (and three times that of the Russian Federation).

ROK in the 80s still had non tariff barriers but it was more liberalized than in the 60s and 70s. ROK in the 80s also gave out lots of loans peaking in 1988, gradually reduced export subsidies, and even thought they privatized banks, the Korean government still had a say in who got the top positions. ROK liberalized even more in the 90s, after 1992. PRC, today, is like ROK in the late 80s.
 
ROK in the 80s still had non tariff barriers but it was more liberalized than in the 60s and 70s. ROK in the 80s also gave out lots of loans peaking in 1988, gradually reduced export subsidies, and even thought they privatized banks, the Korean government still had a say in who got the top positions. ROK liberalized even more in the 90s, after 1992. PRC, today, is like ROK in the late 80s.

I agree. The key question with regard to the PRC is whether it is possible to continue achieving the levels of growth necessary to quadruple their GDP per capita (to get up to US/Western European standards) without significant political liberalization (Which the ROK undertook in the late 80s). For what its worth, I think the answer is no and this will have significant impacts on the domestic and international political situation in the next few decades.
 
I agree. The key question with regard to the PRC is whether it is possible to continue achieving the levels of growth necessary to quadruple their GDP per capita (to get up to US/Western European standards) without significant political liberalization (Which the ROK undertook in the late 80s). For what its worth, I think the answer is no and this will have significant impacts on the domestic and international political situation in the next few decades.

when you think about it, ROK in the 80s was middle income. The way its been described to me by my Korean friend feels like China today. The difference is size. Heavy handed intervention works most effectively if your country is dirt poor and trying to get to some kind of middle income.

Also, the thing about South Korea's model is that it invites a lot of corruption. According to the most recent Corruptions perceptions index, South Korea has a score in the high 50s (correct me if I'm wrong). This is contrary to their level of development. They should be a lot higher. If South Korea has that level of corruption today, imaging what they were like 10-20 years ago. This means China has an even tougher road.
 
when you think about it, ROK in the 80s was middle income. The way its been described to me by my Korean friend feels like China today. The difference is size. Heavy handed intervention works most effectively if your country is dirt poor and trying to get to some kind of middle income.

Also, the thing about South Korea's model is that it invites a lot of corruption. According to the most recent Corruptions perceptions index, South Korea has a score in the high 50s (correct me if I'm wrong). This is contrary to their level of development. They should be a lot higher. If South Korea has that level of corruption today, imaging what they were like 10-20 years ago. This means China has an even tougher road.


The other point about the ROK is that they have had a relatively open political system since the mid 1980s to mid 1990s (depending where you come down on Roh). There is no evidence that China is becoming more open politically. This raises serious issues in my view.
 
The other point about the ROK is that they have had a relatively open political system since the mid 1980s to mid 1990s (depending where you come down on Roh). There is no evidence that China is becoming more open politically. This raises serious issues in my view.

ROK officially became democratic in 1987 and held true democratic elections in 1992 after a 5 year transition. This is my view. China, is run by old men, who grew up in the cultural revolution era. The environment molds the people. This is the issue.

China lacks political consciousness and real political discourse. The closet you get is constant complaining about local officials and jabs at higher ups as well as NON POLITICAL protests here and there. Media is available on everything except POLITICS. Also, all traditional outlets are state owned, censorship on arts is still a problem, and the great firewall is still around.
 
The United States, rather than returning Chinese territory captured by the Japanese after the second world war, keep it for themselves as a territorial holding after having invaded Japan over land instead of dropping the bomb. With an increased US presence in the far East, the Soviet Union is able to capture the rest of Germany and the entire nation, rather than being split, becomes a Communist territory of the USSR. The slight addition of resources to the Soviet Union from West Germany, along with the lack of pressure to develop nuclear arms and begin the nuclear arms race (due to no nuclear weapons ever having been used), drastically slows down the cold war. United States influence in Southeast Asia from its Chinese holdings prevents the communist insurrection in Vietnam, as well as the communist insurrection in China. China becomes a capitalist nation after Mao is put down by United States interference from US bases on the Chinese East Coast. The Soviet Union, unhindered by excessive nuclear programs and overly expensive space programs, undergoes a period of massive conventional military expansion in the 1950s. The space race and nuclear arms race still exist ITL, but are delayed by decades. This expansion leads them to victory in Russian Afghanistan, leading to Soviet domination of the middle East. The influx of natural resources and monopolistic holdings of middle Eastern oil reserves are a massive boon to the Soviet economy, but adminstrative difficulties over such a huge industry and a huge area lead to minor market-socialist reforms similar to those that China undertook in OTL.
 
Top