Growing Orthodox influence in Russia

[Anomalocaris]

I also think most western estimate of India's futurr growth rates are overly optimistic, and biased by our ingrained preference that democratic Indian out perform authoritarian china soon. But I think despite its problems India will still grow to an enormous size with next 50 years, easily surpassing all of Europe combined, possible the US as well. She just won't come close to overtaking china in the foreseeable future.

Brazil will be far behind because of her small population compared to India, and her reliance on growth through sales of raw material rather than building the sort of broad based industrial capacity she needs to be a first rank power.

Russia will grow more corrupt, more reliant upon ever fewer points of glitter in her fundamentally soviet bequeathed industrial base, and just gradually be submerged by the general rise of the developing world.

Where russia will be in 20 years, is where I think Ukraine is now. She would still have a few highly competitive and sophisticated industries as a result of soviet military industrial legacy, but overall the economy would be so backward and inefficient that the average income would be solidly in the third world levels.

Look at Ukraine today. She still appear western. Her population highly educated, She can still build spacecraft, advance military jets, and sophisticated gas turbines, all of which are world class or nearly world class. But her overall population's annual income is lower than in china, only a little higher than India.

This is where Russia is headed.

[jonb]

I have just heard on the 5.30 (british time) morning radio 4 news headlines that the Orthodox church is calling for more lenient sentences. I conjecture that the protests have produced a wobble at least in their thinking. Well done protesters.

Chuck I am not sure you are right about India, Corruption has always been endemic in Indian culture, I think it is one of the reasons why the Portuguese French and British found it so easy to establish a presence, and the British to eventually take control of a sub continent thousands of miles away, with less power at least initially than say the British had in North America, and at that time the Indians were not that far behind the development of the Europeans in manufacture. Even now the Indians show little sign of strategic development, while China has established a military and economic presence in Bangladesh, Burma, Sri lanka, and Pakistan, encircling India. We will have to wait and see if our estimates come true or not, da da da.

[Anomalocaris]

Corruption is endemic in china too.

But chinese government seem to be corrupt yet consistantly rise above its own corruption where forcefully setting and implementing national policy for growth is concerned. It seems to be this "corrupt yet rising above corruption when needed" that mystify western observers of china. Chinese government can decree that property right for this generation be ignore on the tacit, but by now convincing, promise that the next generation will be much better of as a result.

India is probably no more corrupt than china, but India seem unable, due to its democratic structure, to forcefully set and implement national policy for growth. India starts appearent. Then gradually it bogs down. Policies can't be pursued to needed conclusion. In India, every Tom, dick and Harry can bog down development, demand they be fully compensated before anyone else see any benefit from their sacrafice.

I think the main reason why India became a British colony while china remained independent if beleaguered was because china had a much more unified culture made possible by a single written language, no real deep seated sectarian strife, and a long tradition of strong centralized government culturally imbuned legimacy.

India on the other hand was never united as a single culture body, alway had many muturally nonintelligible languages, was always riven with sectarian strifes, and never had any long tradition of a centralized government with deep seated, culturally imbuned legitimacy.

There is also another reason. India was always on the border of other powerful, culturally advanced foreign influence such as the persians, the greeks, the arabs, the mongols, were able to invade India by land, disturb the growth of political unity on the subcontinent, and setback the confidence of India in its own political future.

China on the other hand, was largely isolated from other powerful, culturally advanced foreign influence by the Himalayas and the deserts of central Asia. Those foreign influence was an easy route into china were comparatively less advanced than china. So china had fewer disruptins to the growth in her political unity, and no real setback to her confidence in her own cultural and political superiority till the opium war in 1840s.

[5thHorseman]

Its funny how history repeats itself. The Tsar and the Orthodox Church were cost for an age up until the revolution. Now the elites are in bed with them and the anti elite movement is growing. Bring on the next revolution. Hopefully it has more in common with the American Revolution this time.

[Anomalocaris]

I think it's not so much that history has repeated itself, but that despite its appearently drastically different nature, 73 years of soviet union had failed to change some fundamental characteristic of Russian culture that had spawned the czarist-orthrodox church duopoly in the first place.

[jonb]

Could this all be explained as; similar conditions, similar outcomes.