nepalesecoffeebreak@hotmail.com
COMPARISON OF RUSSIA AND CHINA
Political Economy
One of the many typologies that can emerge as a main system of comparison between specific states or a group of states is the states’ political economy and development. This comparison would focus on the key agents for the development of a state’s economy and the socio-political implications of economic situations. The Russian Federation, hereafter referred to as Russia, and the People’s Republic of China, hereafter referred to as China, are examples of developing economies characterized by their status as industrial nations transitioning to economic stability. Both nations’ economies have experienced a shift from a command economy to a more free-market economy within the last 30 years. They have each experienced decentralization and the difficulties of transition, including the major impact of capitalism in the political sphere.
Russia’s push for industrialization began when it was a part of the U.S.S.R. under Lenin and his “New Economic Policy.” The state controlled all of the key economic sectors at that point, an aspect of the Soviet economy that would continue until Mikhail Gorbachev would come to power in 1991. Stalin’s consolidation of power in 1929 led to collectivization and rapid industrialization as steel, dams, and machines became the major products of the economy. Momentum and arrogance were built during World War II as the Soviet Union made weapons and accelerated industrialization to hyper drive. Even as de-Stalinization was put into action from the 1950’s, industry continued to fuel the Cold War as it depleted the nation’s valuable resources without regard for the environment.
China hopped on the bandwagon after World War II and the defeat of the Japanese invaders. As Mao Zedong led the Chinese Communist Party to power in 1949, he soon implemented a model of the Soviet economy which prioritized industry and seemed to have a positive outcome for the first five years. In 1958, Mao began the “Great Leap Forward” which included measures for “industrialization in everyone’s backyard.” Despite the encouragement for agriculture and industry on the communal level, poor planning eventually led to huge famine in the 1960-61 years. Slow reform following the Cultural Revolution and Mao’s death would eventually make way for Deng Xiaoping’s push for a “socialist market economy.”
Gorbachev of Russia became the party leader in 1985 when he began his policy of “Perestroika,” restructuring and decentralization. His ideals seemed to fail as he tried to maintain full employment but instead fueled increased regionalism and various calls for autonomy. When Boris Yeltsin took over in 1991, he watched the Soviet Union crumble in his hands until only Russia remained. He then took the Russian economy through “shock therapy” in order to decentralize through lifting price controls and privatizing. Through the use of spontaneous, insider, and money-based privatization processes, Yeltsin was able to adopt capitalist measures although inflation was on an all-time rise. The repercussions in the political realm were felt throughout the process of decentralization. Indeed, the effect was one of the main causes that led to the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Yeltsin was only able to carry on because of the disbandment of the parliament in 1993 that was soon followed with a referendum constitution creating a strong executive and weaker parliament.
As quick as Russia’s reform process has been, China’s has been slow. Deng has been the forerunner of reform, carefully instituting aspects of market economy so as not to upset those against rapid change and so as not to disappoint those seeking the much needed reform. The concern of maintaining political stability has continued to be of equal importance to China’s party leaders as economic growth has been. Therefore, protests have reaped human rights dilemma such as the results of the Tiananmen Square student protests and their bloody suppression. However, the importance of privatization and foreign investment is obviously growing. From very little private or foreign industry versus 65% state-led industry in 1985, state-led industry has shrunk to 26% as private and foreign industry spheres have grown to 18% each as of 1997. Although obviously not adhering to communist principles for economic management, China has succeeded in maintaining its communist identity and party control thus far.
The major difficulty throughout the transitions for both states has been the power of inflation. As price controls have been lifted in Russia, inflation has caused anxiety almost beyond measure. In 1992, inflation reached an incredible 1,354% in Russia. Continual inflation problems created the crisis of capital flight, where money was invested in foreign accounts and assets rather than Russian banks and industries. The devaluation of the ruble in 1999 created further problems with the new business class and created an even greater push for autonomy in Russia. Meanwhile, China has not been free of the shadow of inflation. Inflation has been the main concern of many party leaders in the CCP, therefore the reform process has been intentionally slow. One of the dramatic negative effects of inflation in China was the massacre at Tiananmen Square where protests were in part in reaction to economic difficulties brought on by inflation.
The current hindrances for economic growth in Russia and China are similar on a political level, but are different in regards to geography and population. Despite Russia’s advanced technology, its geographical size and location hinder infrastructure and viable year-round trade routes. Although Russia has an emerging role as an oil producer within the global economy, it’s lack of a port that can be utilized year-round and lack of pipelines will hinder growth in that industry. One of China’s major hindrances is its population size and growth rate. The gap between the rich and poor steadily grows as China’s one-child policy remains in effect in higher-income urban areas whereas families in farm communities are often allowed two children. The threat to China’s limit of resources is also a concern as agriculture continues to employ about half of the Chinese work force and arable land is limited. China’s growth as an regional and global economic leader could be hindered if an inability to sustain its population and continue to pull its people out of poverty becomes reality.
The comparison of Russia and China’s economic growth and current development shows some similarities and some contrasts. Both nations have transitioned from command economies to having the free-market emphasis in their economies. Whereas Russia has left its communist ideology politically as well as economically, China has continued to adhere to political principles along communist ideals despite its straying out onto capitalist ground. Both nations have faced and will continue to face inflation as one of their major concerns. As their global roles are more clearly defined, both nations will have to deal with their individual problems of geography and population. It will be interesting to see if China will hold on to its communist identity as Russia was unable to do. These developing economies will continue to draw the world’s attention as well as the attention of political scientists and students.*
Works Cited
Introduction to Comparative Politics. Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger, William A. Joseph,
Eds. New York, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
The Roots of the Revolution
The ideals of the American Revolution centered on classical thought and the belief that all truth lies within reason. Benjamin Franklin bridged the gap between Americans highly valuing theology and Americans becoming greatly involved in science, for he tried to accomplish both of these feats. As America spun into the Revolution, classicists such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine used their speeches and writing to encourage and spur on the soldiers as well as the American people. Paine’s most famous pamphlet was even entitled “Common Sense." In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson stresses the classical belief of nature being similar to a machine, thus stating that the land of America deserved a nation to call her own. Even minority writers reflected classicism in their works. Classical thought was not merely important; it was the basis of the American Revolution.
Benjamin Franklin was called the “First American” because he symbolized the infant characteristics of what America was to be. As the Puritans sought purity through God’s grace, he strived after moral perfection through self-discipline. In The Autobiography, Franklin presents thirteen virtues he would have liked to master. He may not have achieved them as much as he would have liked, but his achievements in the science realm made up for his shortcomings in the moral realm. He was the first Postmaster General of America, assistant creator of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, inventor of bifocals, harmonica, lightning rod, and the stove, founder of debate club, American Philosophical Society, and more. He wrote The Autobiography and the Poor Richard’s Almanac in the Puritan’s plain style, smooth, clear, and short. He mastered the classical, practical side of things, but was said to have unknowingly ignored the soul.
Patrick Henry, a self-educated lawyer from Virginia, was the greatest orator of the American Revolution. He had convincing propaganda and spoke with a powerful, persuasive tone. He was called the “Son of Thunder” for his amazing public speeches that moved the pro thinkers in his audience to action, to war. His speech to the Virginia Convention just months before the Declaration of Independence was drafted caught the attention of his listeners because of the speech’s factual and emotional appeals. He held the power of debate, the power of reason, and he wielded that power to reason with the convention and gain their support. He demanded that the war had already begun, and they must get out there and fight for liberty or death.
A Revolutionary soldier and sustainer of the American spirit, Thomas Paine is the perfect example of an active classical thinker who influenced America magnanimously during the war. George Washington read Paine’s “The American Crisis, Number One," which Paine had written on his drumhead, to his troops before the battle at Trenton to encourage and uplift them and remind them of their cause. Clearly not superstitious, yet determined that God was on their side, he replenished the soldiers’ courage with his resolute words that declared all to be black and white. There were no gray areas; there was no doubt. Classicist thought ran in his blood, and he displayed it in his pamphlet “Common Sense," declaring complete independence was what America needed.
Lawyer, philosopher, scientist, architect, plantation owner, and writer, Thomas Jefferson was very much a classicist thinker. In the Declaration of Independence he stresses “the equal and separate station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle [America].” He saw nature as a machine, and truths to be self-evident. He pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor to support this document in which he believed so strongly. He was another excellent example of classicism influencing the Revolution. To think that Revolutionary America and classicist thought did not have its downsides would be a major misconception. Among the themes of “equality," “freedom from oppression," and “opportunity," there were “slavery," “hypocrisy,” and “shortcoming." The minority writers Benjamin Bannaker and Abigail Adams reveal these glaring facts. While Congress sang independence, women and Afro-Americans asked, “What about us?” Bannaker, one of the most versatile and intellectual people in the colonies at the time, uncovers Jefferson’s hypocrisy and proves that he, a free, well-educated black man, deserved the equal rights Jefferson spoke so highly of. Bannaker was a scientific man, who wrote an almanac from his own calculations. Adams petitions her husband, John Adams, to consider the women, but carries the cunning wisdom of “charm by accepting, by submitting sway, yet have our humor most when we obey.” These minority writers complete the perspective of classicism and where America’s culture has come from, the individual revolutions fought so hard by the minorities, who have indeed come out of the battle victorious.
The intellectual movement that valued reason over imagination, clarity and order, and viewed science as a machine was alive in so many of the Revolutionary War contemporaries. The truth as they saw it from their search for it in reason was that America must have independence from the tyranny of Britain. Franklin, Henry, Paine, Jefferson, Bannaker, and Adams, all classicist thinkers, reflected it in what they wrote and what they lived for. If they had not valued so tremendously what they did, the ideals of freedom, equality, and independence, would they have been so determined to fight the American Revolution in their war of words and then in their war with swords? The roots of the Revolution were sunk deep into classicism and therefore it endured the storm. America lives on today.*
Works Cited
American Literature. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Educational Division. Columbus: 1991.
Bonwick, Colin. The American Revolution. University Press of Virginia. Charlottesville: 1991.
people.ne.mediaone.net/franklopes/revolution_content.htm. 12 Dec 2001.
revolution.h-net.msu.edu/. 10 Dec 2001
Peterson, Merrill D. Thomas Jefferson. Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. New York:
1984.
