>Which neolibs shunned in favor of higher profitability from undeveloped economies
not totally - they still implemented it through Fordism on industrial production to lower the power of unions in the 1st world in vital industry they couldn't cut away.
>wah you called me liberal
lmao at the very least your understanding of the development of leftism across the last 150 years is severely lacking in thinking that it was even majority unionized, the entire orthodoxy of Marx-Leninism was itself a major shift in the conception of how revolution could be achieved away from industrial unionism as the revolutionary body and to the vanguard party leading the multi-front struggle. This is why orgs like the IWW got left behind, they only advocated for industrial struggle and outright banned electoral struggle, whereas the Bolsheviks engaged in both.
Likewise applies to China, there was a long retreat from socialist policies, but Xi and co. is a return to leftist form and is re-implementing stuff like aspects of the Iron Rice bowl to build a political alliance with the rural citizenship (and by extension, the Maoists, who hold most power in universities and rural holdouts). But since you've no understanding of the political situation of China, you deride any attempt to expand their sphere of influence as imperialism or just being a neo-US, when it's more like claiming that the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan is the same as the US' war in Iraq.
>Yes, industrialization and subsequent development of organized labor consciousness is crucial to socialism. This is basic stuff.
...which those countries didn't have lmao, so they had to develop political power via alternative channels.
>And how could that happen? Decades of organization beforehand.
In what? The unions that couldn't exist yet? No, there was no organization in unions to any great majority capacity of these movements, it largely came down to the organization of the non-industrialized peasantry in an alliance with the minority of the proletariat and aspects of the state which defected, such as the military and other bodies. The political basis of Marx-Leninist states were very removed from industrial unionism, or else they wouldn't have been called Marx-Leninist, they would have just been called Syndicalist.
>Unions all around the world, including in the US & Europe, produced continuous escalating labor actions up to outright revolutions, which even when defeated still gave steadily accumulating concessions.
Where? Blair Mountain was cool but didn't win concessions. The miner's strikes under Thatcher didn't gain any concessions. And what few concessions were gained, were quickly wiped away. Because, again, there was no greater organization of labor as a political cause in most of these countries.
>Completely fake, just as phony as the OPEC oil crisis. It was all executed as part of a scheme by neolibs to coup power.
...which was why there was also massive civil unrest in the USSR as the economy grinded to a halt, or were those paid actors? Were the defections among the member states of the Warsaw Pact just CIA plants, or was it a comprehensive failing of an international socialist project which had frozen its own progression into communism because of too overt of an adherence to orthodoxy which was gradually failing and the purging of innovative bodies and ideas like OGAS and others which left them nothing but a constantly decaying system?
>Quotas put a stop to that by stopping migration, just as tariffs stopped offshoring
Migration never stopped, it only got increasingly large across time in most all developed countries. Nor has offshoring ever really ended, all of these things have just continued on with new forms as a way to make a stop-gap for capitalism.
>In no small part due to being scabbed by the next crop off the boats, until quotas were imposed, and organizing them became much more effective.
Again, quotas were never meaningful. Illegal immigration was just a way to maintain rapid influx of migrants while depriving them of even more rights and making them harder to unionize.
>I didn't say it was. I did say, however, that it was absolutely vital to the USSR's foundation, and that it took decades of reformism to create.
Only vital insofar as it was the national project to spread industrialization. As for its actual political pull in the Russian state, it was less than a minority, it was statistically insignificant - otherwise, the Worker's Soviet would have never been made as a concession.
>Because liberalization is still at an early phase. Proposed future liberalization is already set to extend this.
Ah yes, just like how the liberals of the 80s said that China would collapse and liberalize by the 00s. And the liberals of the 00s said they would collapse and liberalize by the 20s.
>lmao indeed, RIP.
<the period of when they abandoned international relations with other socialist states is when they had the policies of massive trade with other socialist states
>A way, yes. But not the only way. Read the PDF in the post just above yours, there's a better solution.
I'm sure your super snowflake labor vouchers or whatever would be practical but in reality the flexibility of having open currency in the market means a lot more than having some ideologically pure system. The Soviets realized it and used it to great effect to smuggle arms and ammo wherever, and the PRC will as well.