Take the example of Britain, where they currently have a larger ethnic British Pakistani population than the British Indian population. Yet there are only 25% Indian households and 33% Chinese households in the bottom income quintile, while there are 44% Pakistani households and 49% Bangladeshi households in the same (White British is at 17%). On the other hand, Indians and Chinese are massively represented in the top income quintile at 20% and 28% of households (compared to White British at 21%). Only 7% of either Bangladeshi or Pakistani British come in the top income quintile, even underperforming the Other Asian category (who are 2x at 14%).
Data source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-...
https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/indians-top-list-of-...
Perhaps one could argue that Indian migrants tend to be educational and work migrants, while Pakistani migrants tend to be family reunification migrants. But that again points back to the cultural reasons behind certain communities doing well, based on what they prioritize.
Cultural thing or…selection bias. The people who left were the ones with the personality and work ethic that leads to being successful.
Read up on Chinese migration from Guangdong during the US gold rush and railways and why they left.
Eventually, Chinese people in nearly all countries rise to the top of the income/wealth chart. For example, the richest group of people in Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia are all descendants of Guangdong people who migrated. In Indonesia for example, Chinese are 1-2% of the population but owns 70% of private wealth.
Fun fact, most Chinese people in China do not eat dim sum. Dim sum is a cuisine popularized by Guangdong (Guangzhou/Hong Kong area). There are also many regions in China that don't even eat rice. They eat bread or noodles mostly. Chinese image outside of China are heavily influenced by a small area in Guangdong due to immigration.
In countries like Malaysia, it seems to be an even mix of both but in others like Philippines 90% are actually from Fujian.
Either these people will migrate abroad and improve their host countries, or their home countries will grow a brain and beg them to stay behind with carrots. Lots of carrots. Like China.
Communism does not take off in stable prosperous societies because there isn't a market for it. It quite literally requires an underclass of people unhappy enough to stake their lives on establishing a different social order.
In reality, however, the opposite happened. Russian potato farmers without any machines or capital started industrialising the moment the communists took over.
Communism is a dead ideology, because it failed to evolve in the face of reality disagreeing with the communist world view.
Communists think that capital grants its owners power and that competition leads to exploitation, when the exact opposite is true.
I'm more careful with those kinds of generalizations these days than I used to be. As a rule, Trump-like demagogues don't win elections in stable, prosperous societies, either. It always takes some kind of crisis -- a lost war, oppressive debt, ruined national self-image, runaway inflation, intolerable abuse by the incumbent regime -- yet here we are.
Propaganda is more powerful than I thought it was... and who's better at propaganda than the Communists?
Now let's also give the benefit of the doubt to the author of the comment, and suppose they were pointing to Mao's governance period, rather than communism at a general level. And even if they didn't, that still something to consider actually.
It's not like their society randomly collapsed by itself, either, they had plenty of help with the opium wars...