Thread: Выборы в Мосгордуму

Originally Posted by Johanna

Humanity and countries move on!

The only question is Where Exactly? Why not back to the USSR? Those were the stable and predictable times, you know...

Originally Posted by Johanna

An Estonian made a documentary about the USSR, called "The Soviet Story" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soviet_Story which I happened to watch on TV. The wiki entry is probably by an Estonian.

Just look at the list (pay attention on geography) of awards of this piece of sh.. er.. art :

2008 Boston Film Festival, USA – "The Soviet Story" received the “ Mass Impact Award”
2008 KinoLev Film Festival - Lviv, Ukraine
2008 Black Nights Film Festival – Tallinn, Estonia
2008 Arsenals Film Festival - Riga, Latvia
2008 Promitey Film Festival - Tbilisi, Georgia
2008 Baltic Film Festival – Berlin, Germany
2009 Sedona International Film Festival – Sedona, Arizona, USA
2009 Mene Tekel festival - Prague, Czech Republic
2009 Politicsonfilm Film Festival - Washington, USA

And, of course, there are no doubts that there isn't anything political in these awards. I'm sure they were given purely for outstanding director's work and high artistic value of the film.

It was screened on these festivals, but I don't think it's POSSIBLE for this film to have won any actual prices. It's WAY too propandistic.

Even somebody who hated both the USSR and modern day Russia could not claim that this film even attempted to be objective.

I think it's shocking that the director got a grant from the European parliament though. How does it help Europe to produce films that seriously insult an important neighbouring country and makes some very dubious claims?

I am annoyed that my tax money is spent on supporting some Baltic persons' vendetta against Russia....

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

Humanity and countries move on!

The only question is Where Exactly? Why not back to the USSR? Those were the stable and predictable times, you know...

I think that's for the Russians to decide and that it's really nobody elses business.

---If they want USSR back and can convince some of the ex countries to join, then fine.... (although that seems unlikely).

---If they want a European style democracy - then they have to make sure that there is no election cheating and that there is complete freedom of press (from gov't interference).

---If the majority don't want a democracy but prefer to be some kind of one-party state because that suits the present circumstances in Russia better --- then I support that too. Democracy is not a perfect means of government. Singapore is a one party state and almost all people support the government there because it's pretty good. They could not have achieved so much, so fast as a democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think it's worth remembering that most political scientists say that it isn't possible to rule a very large country democratically. There are some almost self evident explanations for this which I can't remember right now. Of course large countries can PRETEND that they are a democracy and constantly repeat it until everybody believes it.... Plus, just because it hasn't happened so far doesn't mean you can't at least TRY.

One of the first things I learnt when I studied political science at university was why democracy in the US is mainly an illusion. I really don't remember the details, but after reading the text I was totally convinced. There was really no news in this text just a conclusion based on facts that were well known.

It seems that democracy has not been a big success in Russia SO FAR and that the improvements in living conditions is some narrow areas of business and not from the "magic touch" of democracy. In fact - democracy allowed the state to be ripped off its assets.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

I was referring to some talks about millions that were killed or tortured to death in Gulag.

Gulag was an organization that coordinated the work camps. Gulag wasn't built for the purpose of killing or torturing. The inmates were WORKING and building all that USSR might: canals, factories, beautiful Moscow and Peter's metros, etc.

Yes, yes, snow is white, grass is green and water is wet.

Wiki: Gulag. Modern usage and other terminology

Originally Posted by Ramil

As for the famine - well, the official point of view is taken

I think you're mature enough to realize the numbers that the Duma would use in such case would be double- and triple- reconfirmed. So the figures are very conservative.

I don't question them. I was speaking of other things.

Originally Posted by Ramil

but those were not the result of deliberate policy of extermination. [...] Poor policy led to catastrophe.

Perhaps. But you know what? I DON'T CARE!!! If the price for a quiet and stable country with the predictable future and stable jobs was [conservatively speaking] 7 million people, I'm out of that communistic company. The "poor policy" was established by the communists who sincerely wanted to make their country and people better. Terror or not terror - that demagogy is not working for me. Sorry about that.

I had no intention to convince you in something. I was merely clarifying that I was questioning the stuff Solzhenitsin and others like him in the past and modern 'liberals' were speaking of. I was describing the tons of cr@p they were pouring on us in nineties and I was drawing parallels between the soviet propaganda before that period and anti-soviet propaganda after 1991. Cr@p is cr@p.

Famine and terror are totally different concepts. Besides, the communists as a whole mass (there were quite many of them) cannot all be guilty in things you mentioned.

P.S.
One should always consider a historical person in the context of the time he was living in.
The mankind has learned the true value of human life only after the WW2. Never before rulers thought of a human life as of something of value. We had to depopulate half of Europe in order to start thinking of how terrible were the things we did. You think of ancient rulers as of great persons despite the fact that they too had killed multitudes. Unfortunately, technology played a bad joke on us - century after century we were mastering new and more devious means of destruction. Think, if Roman emperors had firearms how many more people would be killed?
If Genghis Khan had nuclear bombs - would he have hesitated to use them?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I was describing the tons of cr@p they were pouring on us in nineties and I was drawing parallels between the soviet propaganda before that period and anti-soviet propaganda after 1991. Cr@p is cr@p.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Famine and terror are totally different concepts. Besides, the communists as a whole mass (there were quite many of them) cannot all be guilty in things you mentioned.

I respectfully disagree. One of the cornerstones of the communism is the lack of the private property. All property belongs to the state (except for the so-called personal property). Now, the process of depriving citizens of their private property (homes, land, and crop) was officially called expropriation. If you believe the expropriation en mass could be done without the massive use of the brute force, you're an idealist (=not very smart). If you agree to the 7 million dead in the name of the social justice, you're worse than a criminal in my opinion. So, the communists, at their very foundation, are either not very smart or criminals. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but the bottom line of 7 million is enough to be mad I think.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I think that's for the Russians to decide and that it's really nobody elses business.

I agree. Nice approach. And how? By the general democratic elections? Or, perhaps, Russians deep down want a monarch and so he would ascend and claim the Russian throne and unite Russia in a "natural and evolutional" way as he's traditionally supposed to (i.e. by killing whoever disagree)? What did your university professors thought of that? Was there another smart article that, alas, you can't remember?

I don't know! Not my problem (luckily)

But we are not talking about some poor little backwards country in the bush!
We are talking about a country that

-was first in space...
-that industrialised in record time
-supported states across the globe...
-that has had nuclear power right from the start...
-that regularly is a top 3 Olympic medal winning country
-has more natural resources than practically any other country
-100% litterate population
-More Nobel prize winners than anyone cares to remember.

Etc!

If countries like Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden or Portugal can figure out to run a country in a way that assures decent conditions for the people, allowing them to feel reasonably happy with their government... then surely Russia can do it too?

While the Russians figure this out, the rest of the world ought just back off. Russia isn't looking for a fight, or to expand it's territory - so why worry?

Originally Posted by Johanna

While the Russians figure this out, the rest of the world ought just back off.

Did I get you right that you think there are someone alien out there who are trying to impose their will on what type of government should Russia has? If that's not a secret, why are those bad guys?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I respectfully disagree. One of the cornerstones of the communism is the lack of the private property. All property belongs to the state (except for the so-called personal property). Now, the process of depriving citizens of their private property (homes, land, and crop) was officially called expropriation. If you believe the expropriation en mass could be done without the massive use of the brute force, you're an idealist (=not very smart).

Yes, expropriation had taken place, but the overwhelming majority of the Russian population has never owned anything valuable except that 'personal property' you mentioned (clothes and in some cases - houses in rural areas). Technically, all land belonged to tzar (a monarch owns the whole country and simply grants some land to his subjects). So the only valuable thing that was taken from kulaks was 'their' land. What can I say - life is hard sometimes and times change. In order to provide food for the cities the bolsheviks tried to take 'excess' grain from the farmers (kulaks). I stress on the word 'excess' (that was the original idea). The original idea went wrong when kulaks started to burn, hide and spoil their crops instead. Then were the droughts in 1921 - 1922 and in 1931. The crops were infected with some kind of blast. Nobody cared for the land - everyone was enjoying either fighting the kulaks or fighting the bolsheviks. Well, then was famine.

If you agree to the 7 million dead in the name of the social justice, you're worse than a criminal in my opinion. So, the communists, at their very foundation, are either not very smart or criminals. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but the bottom line of 7 million is enough to be mad I think.

You're starting to resort to demagogy... with all due respect. First you say that communists were expropriating property and secondly you imply that 7 million died because of that. That is simply not true.
7 million is a total number, as I understand, the number of dead from both sides of the 'conflict'.
Most of them died out of hunger.

Here's a caricature:

Croc, here is an example - the fact that 99% of newspaper stories about Russia are of this nature and almost never reports anything non-political/military:

(From Daily Telegraph today - UKs largest daily broadsheet paper)
"Russia's punishment of historians, a symptom of 'creeping re-Stalinisation'"

"Grand gestures by America will not secure Russia's goodwill"

Every week there are a few articles like this. People who just read it without reflecting on accuracy or any background will assume that Russia is on its way back to the 1930s. When NATO starts talking about threats from Russia, then people will believe it's justified. Before we know it, we could have Cold War II in progress, America back in its forte and weapons industry laughing all the way to the bank...

There is very rarely reports about anything NORMAL - just political or military.

For me personally as a Swede who would like to see good relationship Eastwards and on the Baltic Sea, it's sad to see that Sweden has tagged on to this trend. At least for England it's nothing new. In Swedens case I think it's due to recent influence from the Baltic states or West. Finland refuses to tag onto this trend though.

But, yes - the article about the historian DOES SOUND disturbing. I think the authorities should have left him alone. However, he is still able to give newspaper interviews to the world - he's not in prison and he'll probably get his stuff back. So it's not exactly Stalin era. This type of thing would happen in Europe too, if you have seriously "incorrect" opinions. For example if you can be suspected of sympathising with terrorism, if you deny the holocaust or if you are inciting racial hatred.

Originally Posted by Ramil

First you say that communists were expropriating property and secondly you imply that 7 million died because of that. That is simply not true.

Alright. As I said the whole issue is controversial as, of course, it's possible to blame all the 7 millions on kulaks themselves who didn't want to give up their crops and start working for whatever conditions the government would offer. As many other things, this subject is up to interpretation. And hence a fruitful source for either of the sides' propaganda. Then again, it's also possible to blame the Gulag's labour source as they didn't agree to do something they've been requested by the state as well. All that is possible to interpretation, I agree. I also realize this topic have been heavily abused by those who did other no-so-fair things, and so it caused your natural protest. It was rather educational for me to realize that the relatively recent events spoke to your heart much closer than those relatively distant ones. Perhaps, the difference between us is just that I still happened to "Join the Comsomol" and I used to explain that as: "Хочу быть в передовых рядах Советской молодёжи и активно участвовать в строительстве Коммунизма".

Originally Posted by Johanna

[i]But, yes - the article about the historian DOES SOUND disturbing. I think the authorities should have left him alone.

Why would you interfere into the Russian domestic policy? Let Russians themselves decide what they want, won't you? If Russians want to stop either of the historic researches, so be it, right?

Crocodile, cards on the table mate!
Swedes can be direct too, and here it goes:

Would you be happier if people like me stopped studying Russian, lost their interest in Russian culture, people etc and said "That country is a nasty aggressive dictatorship full of criminals, drunks and political fanatics...."

Which is better - bashing Russia or taking a positive interest?
You ridicule my opinion even though all I said was "it's up to the Russians"

Perhaps you think the USA/NATO should "liberate" your (ex) country from the current oppression, take your oil, hang Putin for crimes against humanity and set up a pro US government? You could get a Western democracy like those lucky Iraqis, Afghans and others...

Who do you think should run Russia yourself? You are complaining about the opinion of others but you have not expressed any of your own!

Crocodile, cards on the table mate!
Swedes can be direct too, and here it goes:

=> Yeah, bring it on.

Would you be happier if people like me stopped studying Russian, lost their interest in Russian culture, people etc and said "That country is a nasty aggressive dictatorship full of criminals, drunks and political fanatics...."

=> No. And I think Russian culture is very exciting, and also its history and politics. And how else could you have learned all that stuff about that Bloody Sunday? And it's definitely a part of the history that could help you understand that people in Russia tried to use peaceful means to also get some freedom from tzar, but it just didn't work out. So, the partial outcome of that was the revolution of 1917 etc.

Which is better - bashing Russia or taking a positive interest?

=> A positive interest is better. But the positive interest does not mean Russian government is right under all circumstances. And politics is (in a large part) about the relationship between the governments and their citizens.

You ridicule my opinion even though all I said was "it's up to the Russians"

=> And you're free to ridicule mine. I won't be offended, I promise. Had you posted your (as you dubbed them) "fun opinions" under the "Fun Stuff" section of this forum, I would just had laughed with you. However, as you post under "Politics" section and you mentioned that "The issue is very serious" (that was about the US missiles in Poland), I take you as a someone who I can discuss the politics with. Just a conversation to practice my English, but not about the soccer/film stuff, rather about something real that's surrounding us.

Perhaps you think the USA/NATO should "liberate" your (ex) country from the current oppression, take your oil, hang Putin for crimes against humanity and set up a pro US government? You could get a Western democracy like those lucky Iraqis, Afghans and others...

=> Nope, I never said so, and I also don't think that is right. I always expressed my dismay at the expansion of NATO these days. I think that is a very destabilizing and overall negative factor. But for the different reasons than you do. And I think I can disagree with your opinion but share your conclusion.

Who do you think should run Russia yourself?

=> Ah! I was asking you, perhaps you know! You seemed to be so definite about your suggestions...

You are complaining about the opinion of others but you have not expressed any of your own!

=> Whoa!! Really? In my previous post I did just that and Ramil dubbed my opinion as "demagogy". And you see, I disagree with Ramil, but I'm not offended, because he gave a logical explanation that made sense. But when I see something illogical (=propaganda so to speak), I usually start asking questions just to make sure the other person knows what he or she is talking about. And more often than not, it happens that the other person didn't really think it through, but just repeat after someone else who sounded convincing. And I reserve the right to have some fun around that. Otherwise, that would be not a discussion of two real people, but a dull and boring speeches of political analysts. And I think we have enough of that hanging around. Can you really blame me for trying to stay away from them?

So, you see, your directness paid off, and I answered all your direct and honest questions. I'm not that evil after all, just a simple-minded crocodile.

Originally Posted by Johanna

(From Daily Telegraph today - UKs largest daily broadsheet paper)
"Russia's punishment of historians, a symptom of 'creeping re-Stalinisation'"

"Grand gestures by America will not secure Russia's goodwill"

Every week there are a few articles like this.

Well, I think they come becase news reports of that kind are the most interesting news in the West about Russia. Actually, the same sutiatuion is seen here too, but only about Georgia and Ukraine. Reporters cover moslty political intrigues, and about how those governments negossiate about NATO mebmership, and about militariy exercises near state borders.

Thanks for the response Crocodile - sorry I dropped out of the conversation. It got a bit overwhelming. The thing about politics is that there is not a lot of point in sitting at home complaining about it. Or writing in forums. And the future of Russia is not really my business. I just had a bit of a shock when I realised how media everywhere in Europe is judging Russia so harshly and is just incredibly critical. And I agree with you that these things are more interesting to talk about than music for example.

Originally Posted by Johanna

It got a bit overwhelming.

I can totally relate to that. Ironically, people tend to acquire their opinions arbitrarily, but then fight hard to keep them. (And I'm like that too. )

Originally Posted by Johanna

The thing about politics is that there is not a lot of point in sitting at home complaining about it.

Ah, that's a traditional part of what we call in Russia the "Kitchen talk". We do that quite often over a cup (or bottle) of something.

Originally Posted by Johanna

And the future of Russia is not really my business.

Ok, maybe not practically. Neither can I presently vote in Russian elections. So, why should that stop our kitchen talk? The future of the US is neither mine nor your business as well, isn't it? But we still reserve the rights to have our opinions on that. This world is globalized.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I just had a bit of a shock when I realised how media everywhere in Europe is judging Russia so harshly and is just incredibly critical.

I agree, that's a trend. Some of what they're saying is correct, other things are inflated. Media is media.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ah, that's a traditional part of what we call in Russia the "Kitchen talk". We do that quite often over a cup (or bottle) of something.

And there's also a saying: "When guests start talking of politics it's time to close the party."

Что думаете насчет демарша кукол в театре карабаса-барабаса?