Fuller auto.

… and the DPRK were the two Asian economies hailed as the rising stars in the 1960s with very high level of industrialization and living standards

I would like to ask for a (preferably academic) source for when I have another altercation with anti-DPRK liberals.

there is no obligation

There isn’t any sort of relevant legal obligation that is seriously enforced, but it is silly to claim that the PRC doesn’t owe the rest of the Global South action against NATO, considering the PRC’s actions to support NATO’s colonial hold over the rest of the world, as well as the fact that decolonisation should happen (in the ‘moral’ sense of ‘should’).

Goldwater

Who?

Despite Goldwater’s loss his campaign opened the door for radical elements of the far-right to take over the Republican Party and initiate the Reagan Revolution, the loss stimulated feelings of betrayal among the right and energized them against old party elites

So, are you saying that a lot of Republicans split into a different party (or parties) during those events? When was this, and what were the parties?

the Goldwater effect

I’m only getting ‘Goldwater rule’ stuff from psychology/psychiatry when trying to look this up. Not sure what events you are referring to.

his loss (Bernie) ironically transformed the Republican party by opening it up to its radical fascist wing which allowed them to capture the base and take over the party

Are you saying that the Republican party had a more openly ghoulish faction take over the leadership of the party, which followed by the party splitting? What events are you referring to in this case?

You know what happens when socialists take over a significant portion of the democratic party? Centrists will leave and form third parties and just like that we tricked the capitalists into creating a viable third party ecosystem within the US

Is there a historical precedent to base this claim on?

Average Tekken 3 match.

should become a more popular meme.

Didn’t really have time to make a more elaborate response, and me saying that the PRC is ‘not an anti-colonial force’ without qualifiers and further explanations is probably too harsh.
Let’s go over the rest of the thing.

The problem I have with this sort of “both are failures” argument is it relies on an unfalsifiable hypothesis, that China would be in a better position had these reforms not happened

By this logic, you also can’t claim that the privatisation that made lives of people worse in ways like the destruction of guaranteed housing was somehow good by supposedly putting the PRC in a position to strike against NATO at some later point in the future, and not only because that’s an unfalsifiable ‘this is how things would be without it’ hypothesis, but also because it is yet to yield any relevant results. At best, you can reserve your judgement.

In the case I misunderstood you and you are claiming that the PRC might have removed things like guaranteed housing and universal healthcare without privatisation, then I don’t see how you can argue this, considering that both economics and history of planned economies seem to disagree with you, and the claim that the PRC could have likely been an exception is dubious.

I doubt China would’ve survived the 90s without a nuking from the US if they were more “morally pure”

This is an actual unfalsifiable hypothesis that seems to be much less grounded in reality, as the PRC already had nukes, and NATO’s ruling class, including the bourgeoisie, the high politicians, the senior military personnel had - and still do have - an interest in not getting nuked themselves. (EDIT: Also, are you claiming that the PRC is somehow more capable of withstanding nuking by NATO now? Or that NATO’s threat of nuking will somehow be lessened soon-ish? Or that the situation has always been hopeless and everybody should just submit to NATO?)

Furthermore, are you actually suggesting that the PRC absolutely needed to not just carry out privatisation, but to also do things like support the Mujahideen?

Oh look, you’re doing the thing Wisconcom is doing in this thread where you ignore the bulk of what I said so you could argue against a straw man position

Your first argument was the ‘just world’-like thought-terminating cliche with the implications that that’s all there is to it, that there is no cost to privatisation (and that an economy can be liberalised ‘the right way’) for the working class, that actively opposing anti-colonial movements (elsewhere) was somehow good, and that the USSR just didn’t privatise its economy ‘correctly’ (and that said privatisation could have been done by both the USSR and the PRC at the same time). It was a snide remark directed at me, and you completely ignored my criticism of relevant actions by the PRC. So, tit for tat, it seems.

As for the PRC not being an anti-colonial force today, its leadership has shown a lack of interest in dismantling the relations of unequal exchange, an unwillingness to interfere against NATO’s actions, and an interest in maintaining a mutually beneficial relations with the imperial core. Considering that those things align with the interests of members of the PRC’s ruling class, there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason to believe that the PRC is going to swerve any time soon.
Let’s hope I am wrong.

EDIT:
To add to all of that:
The ‘PRC is still around, so its approach is somehow better than the USSR’s’ argument, apart from requiring one to assume that that is a sure proof that allying with NATO (up to and including taking action against anti-colonial movements) and privitising a planned economy are good things (with some never-elaborated-upon details mattering) was a good approach that the USSR should have taken (despite the fact that that would mean crushing anti-colonial movements in Vietnam, Korea, and elsewhere, as well as that the achievements of the USSR in terms of improving living standards domestically would have either be erased all the same or continued in a diminished form while fueled by colonialism), it also assumes that the USSR was in a position to take this approach in the first place, despite the fact that not even the main ‘faces’ of privatisation - Gorbachyov, Yeltsin, Putin, as well as their followers - tried to ally with, or even enter NATO with no success.

One is currently still around, and actively improving things, the other is not

This is a rather silly argument, akin to ‘capitalism is the best system we have tried because it is still dominant’.

The PRC is behind the USSR in terms of workers’ rights/living standards (again, consider things like guaranteed housing, which the privatisation destroyed), and is also not an anti-colonial force presently (considering its inactivity against NATO).

The PRC’s implementation led to a significant reduction in the standards of living, and it ‘succeeded’ due to offering its labour to the imperial core at more advantageous conditions for the latter compared to what the rest of the world offered. Now, the PRC lacks such things as guaranteed housing and is embedded into the colonial system imposed on the world by NATO to the point of being either unable or unwilling to dismantle it.

Khruschev, in contrast, did not implement privatisation (though, there was at least one experiment in liberalisation of the economy via Kosygin and Liberman’s reforms), and did not ally with NATO.

So, there isn’t really much ground to argue that ‘one succeeded, other did not’ in the relevant sense.

The amount of people who support privatisation (including its consequences such as non-provision of guaranteed housing and guaranteed access to healthcare) and working with NATO is ridiculous.

how did they not negotiate

What do you mean? Are you actually not aware of the Ukrainian state to continue the bloodshed, including since the escalation of 2022?

that justifies being invaded by Russia?

The most prolific invader force in the world - NATO - decides to amass weapons and military personnel on its target’s most important border (due to the fact that the most populated parts of Russia are located close to it). How should NATO’s target respond to defend itself?

Ukraine has refused to negotiate peace repeatedly, which would have avoided the destruction.

Also, you seem fine with NATO having invaded Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc., with Ukraine participating in at least the invasions of Iraq and Syria, so it’s incredibly silly of you to go ‘but what about the destruction?’ You are literally supporting the most prolific invader in the world.
Post-coup Ukraine decided to bring NATO’s weapons and soldiers to the border of Russia’s most populated parts. The rest of the world (including Russia) has every right to defend itself from your vile empire.

I’d wager they simply won’t have the chance.

They are not a brainwashed pro-NATO dronie that keeps going ‘everybody who contradicts the people that say, “Iraq has WMDs” must be spreading disinformation!’ Seems like you think that everybody who doesn’t buy your propaganda is Russian for some reason.

my fish website is blowing up so many people

You still can’t believe that other people have correctly analysed the situation? Sounds like you need to study things like history a bit more.

Well, what more can one expect from a pro-colonial pro-slavery religion?