What's new

What China Can Learn From USSR's Fall

Indo-guy

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,820
Reaction score
2
Country
India
Location
Singapore
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2013/10/25/what-china-can-learn-from-ussrs-fall/


What China can learn from USSR’s fall
Those of us who lived and worked as diplomats and foreign correspondents in Moscow in the final years of the era of Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s are bound to carry a life-long intellectual curiosity about the dialectics of reform and democratic transition in authoritarian political systems. This partly explains, speaking for myself, the curiosity I have about the prospects of how China is going to make the grade.
In China itself, the most frequent comparison being drawn is with the Gorbachev era of Soviet history and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. I say ‘dissolution’ deliberately because it was a conscious, unilateral, personal act by Boris Yeltsin that had no inevitability about it. The ‘dissolution’ suited Yeltsin. Period. He didn’t consult others seriously nor would his peer group in the former Soviet republics have agreed.
Thus, to begin with, the comparison with the Soviet experience is a flawed one, empirically speaking. There was no ‘Soviet fall’ as such, as the Chinese discourses keep imagining. In the last Party Congress, the new Chinese leadership openly spoke about it. The debate continues, especially now that the crucial 3rd “plenum” of the CCP is due to take place in November with the focus on reform in its agenda.
In August, Xinhua carried a commentary on this topic by one Wang Xiaoshi (a pseudonym, presumably), which triggered a lot of excitement in China and abroad. The main argument was that Gorbachev provided “weak” leadership and, thus, the reform got out of control. It took the view that the post-Soviet turmoil in Russia in the early 1990s should be an “alarming warning” for China as to what all terrible things can happen if China were to descend into unrest or anarchy.
Interestingly, it negatively portrays Yeltsin’s legacy of democratizing Russia for the first time in history, while commending Vladimir Putin’s achievements in steering the country toward “prosperity” without losing sleep over “democratization”, although as a diminished power on the world stage.
Again, the Chinese communist party tabloid Global Times today featured an interview with the famous Soviet dissident historian Roy Medvedev drawing on the ‘lessons’ of the Soviet experience. He more or less endorses the thinking that seems to be going down well in China, namely, China should be wary about stepping the pedal on political reform and should confine itself to economic reforms.
Yes, by all means, focus on economic reforms at the forthcoming “Plenum”, but for God’s sake leave alone democratization, let time and tide work on it — that’s roughly what Medvedev says. It will be what China wants to hear.
I am surprised. Medvedev could and should have pointed out that the comparison between Soviet Union and China — except the notional one that both were ’socialist’ countries in name — is not quite in order. Even if Gorbachev wanted to practice the Chinese example of economic reform and leave ‘glasnost’ on the back burner, it wouldn’t have worked for him. That’s the honest truth.
The point is, China’s economic growth could be so dynamic primarily because it could exploit ‘globalization’, whereas, the Soviet Union lived in an altogether different world, despised by the West and disowned by much of the East. It was ostracized.
Do not forget that the West boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The remnants of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment still haunt the Russian-American relations. Thus, the latitude from the ‘international community’ that China enjoyed through the 1970s and 80s and the 90s and into the post-cold war era in optimally exploiting the opening up of its economy was a luxury not available for Gorbachev.
Second, there was no way the stagnant Soviet system could have been energized other than by churning up the cesspool, which was what Gorbachev’s ‘glasnost’ intended. As he once plaintively put it, the Soviet manager was like a bird afraid to fly and take to the skies although the cage was open.
Also, Medvedev is partial in saying that the alienation of the Soviet citizen with the system began with Gorbachev. To my mind, Gorbachev inherited the crisis of credibility of the Soviet communist party.
Clearly one full decade before the era Gorbachev, in 1975 when I first arrived in the Soviet Union to work in the embassy in Moscow as a diplomat, the thing that struck me was the profound disconnect between the Soviet system and the Soviet citizen and how the citizen enveloped himself with a surreal world dripping with cynicism.
It came as a shock to me, frankly, because this was not what I had expected. (By the way, I am not sure if the phenomenon of Soviet cynicism ended even with the dissolution of the Soviet system. Who were the ‘oligarchs’?)
A third major difference is the nature of the Chinese economy, which is vastly unlike the Soviet (and Russian) economy that is critically dependent on the income from oil exports. It’s useful to remember that probably Gorbachev wouldn’t have had to go down on his knees and beg for financial bailout from the West if the oil was selling at, say, $15 per barrel instead of $8 at that critical point.
Again, Soviet Union had no manufacturing industry churning out export products for the world market. To add to it, the Soviet Union carried the burdens of ‘proletarian internationalism’ — wheat flour and oil for Najibullah’s socialist government in Afghanistan and so on.
China, on the other hand, has preferred to call itself a ‘developing country’, which absolves it of the need to be a net provider for humanity. China is not promoting socialism abroad, either. In fact, it clinically makes sure that it almost always puts its surplus money only where the mouth is — be it in Africa or in Sri Lanka.
Again, something must be said about the ’social formation’. The USSR was way ahead of China in social development and even now Russia has a far higher standard of living than what the Chinese people have in per capita terms. The point is, the human mind needs to be motivated.
The well-educated, intellectually aware Soviet citizen wouldn’t have settled for what passes for economic reform. This is where China is enjoying an advantage. But what happens when the social development in China progresses and expectations begin to rise and, of course, if the market is to be genuinely unleashed?
I happened to live and work in Seoul in the late 1970 and early 1980s. As the society began to get better educated, more prosperous, more opinionated, the old paradigm failed to work — namely, that as long as the regime performed on the economic front and as long as the export-oriented growth strategy worked, politics would be irrelevant.
I witnessed the assassination of President Park Chung-hee in October 1979 (father of the incumbent democratically-elected president Park Geun-hye) and the bloody ‘Kwangju incident’ in May 1980. In retrospect, they were the birth pangs of democracy in South Korea.
China cannot benefit much out of studying the Soviet Union’s fall — except, perhaps, the perils of a new Cold War. All said, Soviet Union formed part of the western intellectual tradition, whereas, China’s historical consciousness and cultural moorings are vastly different. Which is, arguably, why the West sets a much higher bar of democracy for Russia today than what it is willing to settle for China
 
.
Democracy in a big country will not work - big as both in terms of territory and population.

The US is a good example - US is declining NOT because it has wasted so much money on too many wars, but because of unmanageable regional interests that tear the country apart.

India is another shining example - still poor and uncivilized.

UK is on its way to be ungovernable.

Democracy in small countries work very well, like Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, because there is no such thing as national politics. All politics are regional, localized.

China can never be governed successfully by multiparty democracy. It will not work. However China can make some reform to allow some freedom on local politics, on the provincial level - that is about as high as it could go.

Democracy is overrated. It is not a magic pill that cures all.
 
Last edited:
.
Democracy in a big country will not work - big as both in terms of territory and population.

The US is a good example - US is declining NOT because it has wasted so much money on too many wars, but because of unmanageable regional interests that tear the country apart.

India is another shining example - still poor and uncivilized.

UK is on its way to be ungovernable.

Democracy in small countries work very well, like Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, because there is no such thing as national politics. All politics are regional, localized.

China can never be governed successfully by multiparty democracy. It will not work. However China can make some reform to allow some freedom on local politics, on the provincial level - that is about as high as it could go.

Democracy is overrated. It is not a magic pill that cures all.

says the guy who lives in Free and democratic Canada. Says the guy of the US, whose country buys our bonds in trillions for sub 2% interest- fully knowing it would be at a loss ( value)when it matures. LOL.

at first it was shocking to hear such ignorance and now it is understandable given the real IQ we know of the Chinese.
 
. . .
Democracy in a big country will not work - big as both in terms of territory and population.

The US is a good example - US is declining NOT because it has wasted so much money on too many wars, but because of unmanageable regional interests that tear the country apart.

India is another shining example - still poor and uncivilized.

UK is on its way to be ungovernable.

Democracy in small countries work very well, like Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, because there is no such thing as national politics. All politics are regional, localized.

China can never be governed successfully by multiparty democracy. It will not work. However China can make some reform to allow some freedom on local politics, on the provincial level - that is about as high as it could go.

Democracy is overrated. It is not a magic pill that cures all.


You made a very good point.

The ancient Greek philosophers and politicians also believed that the democracy could not work beyond the city-state level.

Nehru said (not exactly the same words) at 1954 "Now I'm most interested in India and China. The political and economic structures are clearly different between two countries, but we are actually faced with the same problem. The future will prove which country, what kind of governance model will achieve greater success in all aspects" 60 years past, the answer is very clear now. China leads India about 20 years in almost all aspects.

There are some Chinese simply thought that democracy could solve every problem in china. When they look at India today, they totally changed their mind. Similar country, similar population, different achievements. What democracy gives India is only delusion. India is a perfect lesson to Chinese for what a failed democracy can hurt the country and its people. We Chinese have a clear mind about this. China still have many problems caused by the rapid developing and political system. China faces with these problems and will solve them.

Today, China's strategic target was not India and will never be. China's strategic target is USA. India can only act as a regional power and second-level country in the new international political and economic order.

Three major problems with Indian society: caste system, bad basic education and lack of land reform. The modernization of a developing country need three basic elements: capital, land and labor. These elements are missed during the economic reform in India. The development of India's economic can only benefit a small portion of its large population.
 
.
The Chinese have already done enough to not ruin the country - they killed traitors in 1989. Our party leaders were too old to fight back Gorbachev's reforms. And Gorbachev and other traitors just had to be shot, as Stalin did. And everything would be all right so far.
 
.
The Chinese have already done enough to not ruin the country - they killed traitors in 1989. Our party leaders were too old to fight back Gorbachev's reforms. And Gorbachev and other traitors just had to be shot, as Stalin did. And everything would be all right so far.

Gorbachev did the right thing. The entire Eastern Europe had revolted. Blame it on Yeltsin for the poor transition to open market economy and reckless privatization which led to oligarchy and corruption.
 
.
Gorbachev did the right thing. The entire Eastern Europe had revolted. Blame it on Yeltsin for the poor transition to open market economy and reckless privatization which led to oligarchy and corruption.
capitalism - a step backwards in the development of society. Gorbachev destroyed the Soviet economy and fall apart the Union. Yeltsin and others - just his younger assistants. They are also to blame, but Gorbachev - Second Judas. He destroyed the most beautiful country in the history of mankind.
 
.
Gorbachev did the right thing. The entire Eastern Europe had revolted. Blame it on Yeltsin for the poor transition to open market economy and reckless privatization which led to oligarchy and corruption.

It's in fact very easy to see who is the traitor. The person who gets praises from your enemies is the traitor. In that regard, both Gorbatchov and Yeltsin were traitors.

You see our media praising India and most Indians imbibe our poison with glee. :)

Here Gorbachev advertising for Louis Vuitton

Gorbachev_full_image.jpg
 
.
It's in fact very easy to see who is the traitor. The person who gets praises from your enemies is the traitor. In that regard, both Gorbatchov and Yeltsin were traitors.

You see our media praising India and most Indians imbibe our poison with glee. :)

Here Gorbachev advertising for Louis Vuitton

Gorbachev_full_image.jpg


The entire Eastern bloc was gone, it was a lost cause.
 
.
It's in fact very easy to see who is the traitor. The person who gets praises from your enemies is the traitor. In that regard, both Gorbatchov and Yeltsin were traitors.

You see our media praising India and most Indians imbibe our poison with glee. :)

Here Gorbachev advertising for Louis Vuitton

Gorbachev_full_image.jpg
It is hard to imagine a more despicable fate for a man who was the head of a superpower - advertise pizza for enemies!
s17807496.jpg

Only Judas more despicable in my eyes than Gorbachev. And in eyes of most of Russians.
 
.
It is hard to imagine a more despicable fate for a man who was the head of a superpower - advertise pizza for enemies!
s17807496.jpg

Only Judas more despicable in my eyes than Gorbachev. And in eyes of most of Russians.

Yes, I remember that ad in the 1980's. At that time I thought what a sell-out that Gorbachev has become.

Here is the video
 
.
Yes, I remember that ad in the 1980's. At that time I thought what a sell-out that Gorbachev has become.

Here is the video
The worst thing he did - it's not even the destruction of the Soviet Union. Russia has been destroyed many times and always reborn. The worst thing - he discredited the very idea of socialism and communism. Mankind has dropped due to the development of social relations back to the 19th century.
 
.
The Chinese have already done enough to not ruin the country - they killed traitors in 1989. Our party leaders were too old to fight back Gorbachev's reforms. And Gorbachev and other traitors just had to be shot, as Stalin did. And everything would be all right so far.

Funny you should mentioned that. Jiang was promoted rather quickly to leadership position precisely because China observed USSR's problem with old leaders, specifically, if the leader is too old when they get into the office, there is a very real chance for several of them to die of old age in a row, thus creating political turmoil. In fact, in response to the death of Andropov and Chernenko, China established programs to reduce the age of its leaders. So while Mao and Deng was quite old when they are holding the office, Jiang and Hu are significantly younger. Xi and Li right now are both in mid-50s, which is an ideal age for leaders.

China learned A LOT from USSR, especially the fall of it. One of the big problem with USSR is that its economy is way too depend on its allies. For example, USSR has very good heavy industry, producing heavy industrial machinery for both USSR and its allies, but its agriculture sector and light industry is rather lack luster and highly dependent on its allies. Now, this isn't that much of a problem if everything is running smoothly, but in case of sudden disasters, such as conflicts between allies or losing a significant member, recovery becomes very difficult. For example, after Ukraine breaks away from USSR, the agriculture production and ship building capacity of Russia is crippled and still haven't fully recovery even after 20 years.

There are also numerous other lessons, such as dealing with international politic, balancing military budget, etc.

Gorbachev did the right thing. The entire Eastern Europe had revolted. Blame it on Yeltsin for the poor transition to open market economy and reckless privatization which led to oligarchy and corruption.

capitalism - a step backwards in the development of society. Gorbachev destroyed the Soviet economy and fall apart the Union. Yeltsin and others - just his younger assistants. They are also to blame, but Gorbachev - Second Judas. He destroyed the most beautiful country in the history of mankind.

In my opinion, Yeltsin is one that setup all the artillery, but Gorbachev is the one that actually pulled the trigger.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom