Telling a long story do not transform it in true. Your story is more based on western ideology in propaganda. Notice that it was not able to neither explain nor

Telling a long story do not transform it in true. Your story is more based on western ideology in propaganda. Notice that it was not able to neither explain nor counter the facts that supports my version: * The west is very afraid when a competitor follows Marxism. It is something that it tries to avoid at all costs, and employs the maximum violence to prevent any country to become communist. A country becoming fascist? Not a big deal. Religious fanatics is taking the power? Well, the west helped a lot of them in the past and in the present. But becoming communist? This never is allowed. * The only time that western hegemony was threatened by non-western countries in modern times, they followed a variation of Marxism with revolutionary origin. These two facts are completely at odds with your explanation. You defend that Marxism was detrimental to the development of the countries. Of course, everyone agrees, even Marxists, that the years following a revolution are very hard and it takes time to recover, both because of the internal struggle, and because the western countries launch a violent offensive trying to destroy by military force the revolution. And yet, even with this problem, no non-western country ever was able to threaten western hegemony, except after adopting Marxist theory. And several of them tried. Russia was a feudal country at the time of revolution. It was in the past considered a traditional and powerful country, but at the time they had become very backward country, with feudal serfdom and very little industries. This can be seen in how humiliatingly they lost a war with Japan. Japan, and all European countries were much more modern than Russia. And after revolution, in some decades, they were sending satellites to space, spaceships to the moon, before all other countries, even USA. This is a fact. You can use the "No true Scotsman" argument, saying that they are not capitalist enough, and this explains why they are a shadow of their past. But when they were more capitalist? At that time in the past, when they were doing huge leaps and developing at astonishing speed or nowadays? You talk a lot about "huge human costs". You are aware that capitalism genocided an entire continent to develop, right? And after this, for a long time, we had first slavery, then brutal colonialism, followed by great war between capitalist powers disputing colonies and markets... I do not know any other system that had a so high human cost. Moreover,having markets it is not at odds with Marxism and communism. Even Lenin tried to develop some form of marked based on cooperatives in USSR. True communist cannot succeed isolated in a capitalist world anyway. In my definition, what defines a country as socialist, (or "communist" using the naming more common in USA) is which is the dominant class. The bourgeoisie in China indeed have power and is taken into account, but I do not think that the country is ruled by bourgeoisie and the capital, like in capitalist countries. But I know that this is a polemic opinion. Anyway, they still have five-year plans and centralize long-term decisions. And indeed, they are being successful into achieving their long-term centralized goals.