Instead of plundering and stealing, China's leadership relied on systematic growing of its productive economy without ever abandoning their people. There is also the small, but important element of honor, which does make certain things inadmissible. The late Soviet and the current Russian "elite" does not have this sense--that's also why their ideal was not Jefferson or FDR but Berlusconi or eventually another Italian with a similarly ending name. That's also why they hate and fear so much people like Strelkov or Mozgovoy.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Comparative politics of China and Russia: Is a sense of honor (organ for honor) needed for development and politics?
The key difference between Russia and China: In late 1980s and in the 1990s, Russia abandoned its allies and friends in exchange for a (temporary) permit to make part of the elite billionaires and members of the VIP club of the rich snobs. This also meant freeing as well as abandoning its own people. In 2000, a new social contract was forged; it was actually drafted by the same neo-liberals headed by German Gref and Kudrin. Temporarily, oligarchs saw the need to share, and just steal for themselves, and stabilize the situation as sometimes happens during a terminal illness. The temporary increase in the rise of the prices on raw materials, oil and gas facilitated this task. One of the key goals of this was to create a new bank of trust with the people, which was all but bankrupt by the late 1990s. This new bank of trust had 3 key elements: 1) pacification of Chechnya, 2) rise of salaries and living standards; 3) creation of the cult of Putin's personality. Conditions were set for NATO's near final push and calling in accumulated political, moral and financial liabilities of Russia's comprador oligarchs.