<<Don't forget the period between 59 and 63 when the Chineese were less prosperous than during the Japaneese occupation.>>
The progress we see today is the final result of all the years of communism, mistakes and misfortunes factored in. What system on earth doesn't have temporary set-backs, misfortunes, mistakes? But only ONE came out ahead. If my horse wins a race, he wins a race - - no point saying, "don't forget the point between the 2nd and 3rd quarter-mile when he was behind three other horses."
<<Most of the progress you are bragging about didn't happen while Mao was alive.>>
Mao played his role and then made way for other good Communists to play theirs. Mao wasn't the only Communist, you know. It's like saying that much of the progress of the Jewish people didn't happen when Moses was alive. It's more of a "do what you can and then pass on the baton." I love Chairman Mao and I honour him for his great role in the war and the Revolution, but like everyone he made mistakes too; in the fire of war and Revolution he emerged victorious, one hell of an accomplishment, and without which none of the later triumphs could have followed. Many people participated, but the guiding line in all their actions was, and remains today, the fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist thought, adapted wisely to changing circumstances.
<< China today has a lot of millionaires, it will not be long before there are more Chineese millionaires than American.>>
I think the time will come for them to eliminate either the millionaires or their fortunes to prevent them from buying up the government as happened unfortunately in the USA. And I think they're in a much better position to do that than the US is today, because the Party still exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas the rich in the US have bought up not only the two political parties but also the judiciary and the MSM. The US will never shake them off, China will do so when it needs to do so. Even Russia has taken on its oligarchs - - one by one, they are landing in jail and their fortunes, to the extent that the Russian government can get their hands on them, are being taken back in the name of the people.
<<The key of course was to totally drop the useless and counterproductive parts of Communism like insisting on equality of economic result .>>
While retaining a tight control over the amount of the inequality of result AND maintaining the principle of state ownership of the means of production.
China faces future problems but so does the USA. But China is still trending up, and the USA is still trending down.
<<China has poor people still , but thanks to abandoning the tenants of Marx they are not starving as much as they used to.>>
". . . not starving as much as they used to." or "they eat a helluva lot better than they used to." What is this comment but a variation on the glass is half empty or the glass is half full? However you want to put it, the difference between China now and China in 1948 is like night and day, and communism is what made the difference possible. The progress made by China between 1948 and now outstrips any progress made by any other country on earth in the same period. China sooner than you think will outstrip the US military in both technology and firepower and the US can't do a God-damn thing about it. It's just something that is going to happen and something that the US is just going to have to suck up. And it's all due to the interplay of two factors: you are going down because capitalism has failed and China is going up because communism has succeeded.
<< Call it Communism if you must , what makes it a success is what communism isn't.>>
Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard the Communist Party, as well as state ownership of the means of production. The means by which China has won its success is no more an abandonment of communism than Lenin's adoption of the NEP was in the 1920s, or Fidel's temporary adoption of the "mercados libres" in the 1980s. One of the strengths of communism is its adaptability and willingness to experiment with new systems some of which work and some of which don't. The US, since the rich bought out both political parties, was even afraid to experiment with health-care systems, let alone systems of production and distribution. You're ossified and you're fucked, both.