I have to disagree with you, Reagan did a lot to lift the US from the ground after Carter's mess.
Seconding this. Reagan made some serious mistakes with regard to amnesty and 2A infringements, but also rebooted the US economy from the Carter mess. Under Carter, we had high interest rates, inflation, sky high fuel prices, with heavy regulation and taxation on the very things we needed to resolve those issues. There were home loans with 20% interest rates under Carter.
The USSR would have unraveled on their own, by the 70s, their economy was utterly stagnant and in shambles by the 80s.
That argument to me is absolute nonsense - Cuba has suffered through economic stagnation since Castro took over, and the commie grip on power there has not loosened one bit. Under Mao, 95% of Chinese people lived at subsistence levels, which means on the brink of starving to death every day - and that persisted until Nixon opened relations with China in the 1970's - never once in that time did the Chinese Communist Party experience any legitimate challenge to their grip on power. Do people who propose this theory that the Soviets would collapse because of the suffering of their people understand that never once has a communist authoritarian regime been overthrown by its people or collapsed because of their poverty? Seems not.
Communist regimes collapse by trying to do half ass capitalism to compete, which is hard because when people get a taste they like it and want more of it.
Most of the time the "communism" is only for like the period of the first dynasty, then it rapidly morphs to a much less ideological and more like state capitalism or national socialism form.
CCP is communist in name only, they have all the trappings of national socialism (even camps for problematic minorities!).
Seconding this. Reagan made some serious mistakes with regard to amnesty and 2A infringements, but also rebooted the US economy from the Carter mess. Under Carter, we had high interest rates, inflation, sky high fuel prices, with heavy regulation and taxation on the very things we needed to resolve those issues. There were home loans with 20% interest rates under Carter.
The USSR would have unraveled on their own, by the 70s, their economy was utterly stagnant and in shambles by the 80s.
That argument to me is absolute nonsense - Cuba has suffered through economic stagnation since Castro took over, and the commie grip on power there has not loosened one bit. Under Mao, 95% of Chinese people lived at subsistence levels, which means on the brink of starving to death every day - and that persisted until Nixon opened relations with China in the 1970's - never once in that time did the Chinese Communist Party experience any legitimate challenge to their grip on power. Do people who propose this theory that the Soviets would collapse because of the suffering of their people understand that never once has a communist authoritarian regime been overthrown by its people or collapsed because of their poverty? Seems not.
Communist regimes collapse by trying to do half ass capitalism to compete, which is hard because when people get a taste they like it and want more of it.
Most of the time the "communism" is only for like the period of the first dynasty, then it rapidly morphs to a much less ideological and more like state capitalism or national socialism form.
CCP is communist in name only, they have all the trappings of national socialism (even camps for problematic minorities!).