Most of the insubordinates between them were unconditionally sent to Siberia. Later on, Khrushchev constituted the decentralized industry, because he wanted things to run smother and faster, without the current impediments from the central bureaucratic authority. A great number of ministries were dismantled. In what concerns the agriculture, Khrushchev established lots of wheat plantations on the former empty lands from Asian and Siberian Russia, thing which led to a bigger amount of manufactured products. He also reduced the taxes that collective farmers had to pay for their small, private cultivations. But social negative aspects restraint people's freedom, such as the fact that, in 1957, Boris Pasternak, now a famous writer, couldn't receive the Nobel Prize because his well-know novel, Doctor Zhivago, somewhat criticized the negative aspects from the post-revolutionary Russia.

Under Brezhnev too, there were lots of writers and artists, the intellectual elite in general, who manifested their disapproval in what concerns the poor quality of lifestyle and the low access to various resources in Russia. Of course, as one can imagine, they were treated with violence and cruelty by the government, many of them being sent in exile, in very hostileconditions of emprisonment. Nevertheless, as L.S. Stavrianos affirmed in his Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age, the life of the rich has much of its bases on the very cheap work hand and resources in impoverished countries; our modern, comfortable life is facilitated by the very cheap resources in poor countries, such as natural resources, man-made products, energy, and, in the first place, a tremendously low-cost working hand.

In 1985, another thing happened in Russia: that which is often called 'perestroika' or restructuring. This was a measure imposed by Gorbachev, in order to create a new society, to give the taste of a little bit of freedom to the existing society. In truth, he tried to reinforce the Russian economy by letting information and products flow freely. He didn't actually succeed, and the troubles in the country continued and even increased. In 1991, on August 23, Yeltsin disestablished USSR and the countries within it began to declare their independence.

The situation in China is considerably different, if we only take into...

In his book, Stavrianos provides a detailed analysis about the reasons for this failure. On one hand, the Western imperialism obliged China to modernize very fast, when the latter didn't have the proper social conditions. On the other hand, Russia sacrificed Chinese masses only in its interests, without paying attention to people's will. Russia wanted to gain a new ally, embodied by China.
In China, the monarchy, which lasted 2,000 years, was replaced by a new state, in the form of a republic with democratic ideals that had never been accomplished. The Chinese communist philosophy, called Maoism, is derived from the theories of the Chinese communist leader, Mao Zedong; his theories have been described as an alternative to the Marxist-Leninist concepts. But this philosophy had also its own original properties, such as the fact that it put a stress on peasants, not like Marxism, which emphasized the power of the working class in what concerns the so-called democratic revolution.

Another aspect within the communist China is the fact that the human condition was very poor and the resources to which people had access were dramatically limited. As I have shown before, Stavrianos thinks that this poor condition of the quality of life in pauperized countries is somehow a pillar for the comfortable, no-worries life of the people in the first world.

In conclusion, Russia and China built up an entire complex revolutionary system which challenged and often ruined the newly established states, from all the points-of-view: economic, politic, social and intellectual; their systems had similarities and lots of differences, as I have proved in my essay.

Bibliography

L.S. Stavrianos. Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age. Morrow, 1981.

Harold R. Isaacs. The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951.

Don C. Price. Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.

David Ludden. Modern Inequality and Early Modernity: A Comment for the AHR on Articles by R. Bin Wong and Kenneth Pomeranz. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/107.2/ah0202000470.html