Not even close. Russia was never a great exporting country like China is. Russia never dominated the imports of most consumer goods in America like China has.
They are not even on the same planet.
“Back then, informed opinion was convinced that the Soviets were the wave of the future since, hey, their economy was growing 10% a year”
Russia used to boast about “burying America” (Khrushchev ) from military power. No one that I know thought Russia was going to overtake America economically. We hardly ever imported anything from Russia. Consumer goods in Russia were always in short supply because they put their best brains and factories to work on the latest tanks and fighter aircraft. Remember that famous kicthen "debate" between Nixon and Khrushchev ?
“Stalin's program of enforced industrialisation actually was successful in creating a large-scale industrial base where one had not previously existed. “
Correction: Stalin;s forced collectivization ruined Russian agriculture. Remember how the Soviets used to import wheat from America so they wouldn't starve during the days of Leonid Brezhnev? Stalin's forced collectivization increased Russian industrial output for WAR materiel, not for normal everyday consumers goods like cars or even houses, which continued to be in short supply in Russia long after Stalin was gone, right into the time of Gorbachev.
That doesn't matter. My point is about industrialisation and attendent "on paper" economic growth. That point is unassailable.
Russia used to boast about “burying America” (Khrushchev ) from military power. No one that I know thought Russia was going to overtake America economically. We hardly ever imported anything from Russia. Consumer goods in Russia were always in short supply because they put their best brains and factories to work on the latest tanks and fighter aircraft. Remember that famous kicthen "debate" between Nixon and Khrushchev ?
Your assumption seems to be that economic strength is directly related to the willingness of a country to manufacture cheap plastic junk for other nations. It isn't. It is more closely related to the underlying ability of a nation to produce - period. Factories can always be retooled, if need be.
Correction: Stalin;s forced collectivization ruined Russian agriculture. Remember how the Soviets used to import wheat from America so they wouldn't starve during the days of Leonid Brezhnev? Stalin's forced collectivization increased Russian industrial output for WAR materiel, not for normal everyday consumers goods like cars or even houses, which continued to be in short supply in Russia long after Stalin was gone, right into the time of Gorbachev.
Who said anything about agriculture? That is irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about industrialisation, nothing more. But all the same, your argument makes my point - simply having good numbers "on paper" does not equate to having a truly strong and sound economy. Likewise, just because China posts large growth numbers and positive trade balances does not mean that China has truly sound long-term economic strength. In fact, the massive amounts of American debt you mentioned above make this point - a good share of China's riches comes from interest payments made by the USA and other debtor nations. It doesn't come from home-grown wealth creation.