Thread: О тех, кто в России у власти

YouTube - ‪Навальный или Федоров. За кем правда?‬‏

Гыыы... Федоров доставил.
Америка виновата во всём! Я всегда это подозревал.

Summary from the youtube video:

United Russia - party of corrupt thieves or honest and principled patriots?

For once, Google did a nice translation.

I totally agree with exposing America for what it (sadly) is, particularly in its foreign policy!
But anyone doing that should be credible themselves too! And I honestly can't be sure what to believe about United Russia...

Principled, patriotic and corrupt thieves maybe?

If Russia was a serious dictatorship, then obviously this type of program would not be possible to air. At least a debate about it is possible.

If they get more time in power, will they get better, or worse? Will they use the time to achieve positive changes that benefit normal people? Or just to make themselves richer and impossible to get rid of?

One of the problems with democracy is that it is hard for any good and well intentioned political party to achieve major positive change when he constantly has to worry about approval ratings and the next election. There are examples of when it can be good to give them a chance to get on with the work without the distraction of elections. Singapore is a good example.

On the other hand, once a party knows it can not lose power.... the possibilities for corruption and abuse start.

United Russia is a party of thieves and thugs, it's a well-known fact.

Swedish media is very interested in this group and say that they are Putin's new Komsomol and so on.
Have you got any view on them?

The poll was 99%/1% in favor of Navalny - an illustratory thing.
For those who didn't understand the original video - there are two guests in the studio, one is Alexey Navalny, the other one is Eugeniy Fyedorov. Navalny is known for his publications about corruption and for his 'meme' United Russia is a party of swindlers and thieves. The whole conversation (50 mins) went like that:

Navalny: You've got corruption in United Russia, here are the facts: ....
Fyedorov: It's all CIA's doing, they want to strangle Russia
Navalny: Why haven't you (United Russia) done anything about that worldwide Anti-Russian plot in 10 years?
Fyedorov: You too work for CIA! It's all conspiracy, we raised salaries and pensions
Navalny: So what can you tell about these facts?
Fyedorov: Lies, all lies, it's CIA
Navalny: {facepalm}

what's a meme?

Originally Posted by sperk

what's a meme?

Meme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Мем — Lurkmore

З.Ы. Be ready to your mind blown up after reading this, especially the second article.

Originally Posted by Hanna

If they get more time in power, will they get better, or worse? Will they use the time to achieve positive changes that benefit normal people? Or just to make themselves richer and impossible to get rid of?

One of the problems with democracy is that it is hard for any good and well intentioned political party to achieve major positive change when he constantly has to worry about approval ratings and the next election. There are examples of when it can be good to give them a chance to get on with the work without the distraction of elections. Singapore is a good example.

On the other hand, once a party knows it can not lose power.... the possibilities for corruption and abuse start.

The Unated Russia have been in power already for 10 years. What else prove is needed to show that they didn't do life better? 10 years is enough ! At least to show your intentions. And all we can see is that during this time they got reacher and people got to live worse. They lifted salaries, but prices lifted much more, they cancel free school education, abolish academies, lift taxes, almost abolish small bussiness etc.



I can see clearly the policy of United Russia through this interview: they steal from people and when asked by people "why do we live so bad" the answer: "It's all US'doing!" It makes me laugh seeing Navalny adduce prooves by reading in order names and their doings, and meanwhile Fedorov go: It's all CIA's doing! you are working for America!

Originally Posted by Yukionna

.......They lifted salaries, but prices lifted much more, they cancel free school education, abolish academies, lift taxes, almost abolish small bussiness etc (.......) they steal from people and when asked by people "why do we live so bad" the answer: "It's all US'doing!" It makes me laugh seeing Navalny adduce prooves by reading in order names and their doings, and meanwhile Fedorov go: It's all CIA's doing! you are working for America!

That sounds crap!
Probably, America WOULD like Russia to be more like itself (pay for everything, some really rich people and some really poor... etc, etc)
But to blame the USA for their own mistakes and shortcomings is just a lame excuse!

So who is a "typical" United Russia voter? Rich people, pensioners... or who?

The majority of Russians are not very rich, right? So why do they vote for a party that privatises public services and makes them poorer?
Wouldn't it be more logical for them to vote for something like Social Democrats, that would make things cheaper for them and stop the "elite" getting super-rich... and tax the rich people serviously ... (or maybe Social democrats don't exist in Russia?)

Originally Posted by Hanna

So who is a "typical" United Russia voter? Rich people, pensioners... or who?

It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes (J. Stalin)

As sad as it is... I understand that there is cheating in the Russian elections.
But is it a LOT, or is it just a little bit?

I mean, there must be people who vote for them right? Putin is quite popular among a lot of people, isn't he?

Even if most people here don't vote for United Russia, I guess you must know people who do, or you are aware that certain groups in society votes for them, like for example state employees, maybe?

For example, most of my life, my country has been run by Social democrats. My parents did not like them at all, and complained a lot about them. Many of my friends don't like them now. But everyone knew that this party kept winning elections because the majority genuinely voted for them. There was never any doubt about that, and people like my parents simply had to accept that. They also knew the reason WHY all these people voted for that party. So they could not complain about any cheating, just that they did not like the policies of that party, and some of the things it did.

I wonder, is it not the same in Russia - that most people actually DO vote for United Russia?
What about pre-election polls and exit polls...
Are you saying that those are rigged too, and do they match with the election results?

If people have no faith in elections, then it seems pointless to have them! Or is it feasible that some other organisation like the UN or EU helps to verify the elections - if it was possible, would it help and would you want that?

I have not forgotten the Swedish-Russian guy who wrote in a forum "I hope everyone understands that Russia is now a right-wing dictatorship".
Spooky, if true.

Originally Posted by Hanna

So who is a "typical" United Russia voter? Rich people, pensioners... or who?

Various people. First, all state employees, police officers, military, etc. are almost forced to vote for UR by their superiors. They are organized to go to vote with their co-workers, also they being fed bullsh1t like: "there will be a hidden camera installed in voting cabin and if some of you will vote against UR, he will be immediately fired from your current job." This is nonsense of course (about cameras) but many people are still afraid. Second, the people who are satisfied with the current state of affairs and don't want any changes or the people who believes that United Russia is a "lesser evil" and anything else would be much worse (United Russia and Putin in particular always plays on these feelings of people like: "You do not want to vote for United Russia, don't you? Maybe you are going to vote for some liberals? Be ready to return to the chaos of 90s then."). Third, the state and municipal officials themselves and their family members. These groups give United Russia about 30% of votes. The rest are usually falsified.

Originally Posted by Hanna

What about pre-election polls and exit polls...

Are you saying that those are rigged too, and do they match with the election results?

They usually don't bother with exit poll data - it's unofficial and nobody can prove anything with that. There ARE the differences. And not by mere a fraction of percent, but in some cases the differences are up to tens of percents. The opposition routinely cries about it but nobody seems to care.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The opposition routinely cries about it but nobody seems to care.

It seems to be ripe for another civil war. "Mmm, I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends."

Well any return to the situation in the 90s would be tragic, not to mention any kind of dramatic revolution on political upheaval.
Until I joined this forum I was not up to date on the situation in Russia at all, and I actually thought it was still a bit like it was in the 1990s.
That was so degrading for Russia and its citizens, so I guess that those voters are right, at least in that respect. I mean, talented people working their backs off in various demeaning jobs, and honest people ending up as criminals etc. That must never be allowed to happen again.

It's crazy to spend 70 years trying to build communism, and then just let the whole thing fall to pieces and be stolen by greedy thieves. It's particularly tragic in relation to the old people, I think. Would have been better to reform slowly, if people were genuinely fed up and were sure that they wanted a market economy.

Another thing is that it is not easy to create democracy where it has never existed.
In Western Europe it happened more slowly, and things like corruption has been quite common in many countries until fairly recently.

Not sure how much Western Europe and the US really are though (it varies) but at least there is less obvious corruption.
(Although there are some vary dubious alliances between some governments and private companies, and medias influence on how people vote makes it hard to know how much they are really voting based on values and what is in their best influence.

But the problems are less in-your-face than in Russia.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Would have been better to reform slowly, if people were genuinely fed up and were sure that they wanted a market economy.

I'm not sure that is a fair approach. I think people didn't really know what they wanted and especially how their dreams should be approached. In fact, there are pros and cons in the planned economy vs. the market economy. As much as I dislike the communism/socialism, I can't deny the obvious pros of the planned economy. The founders of the planned economy in Russia had no means to know the cons until they built it and it was thoroughly tested with time. It's easy to be wise now, but back then in the early 20th century it wasn't clear which way is better. Many believed the market economy is the past and the planned economy is the future. Also, the term "fed up" is relative: some people were fed up, others thrived on that. Also, the term "market economy" wasn't used up until later. Rather, the term "хозрасчёт" was coined to denote a payment ABOVE the set up government salaries. (Yes, both ought to be paid, so nobody really knew what is that supposed to mean, and how is that going to work. What happened as a direct result of more money paid without the substantial change in the output was that the money was devalued.) The "market" economy was viewed very negatively those days since many people were able to get their first-hand experience buying on the local markets. The prices were way above the government-set prices and no competition was to be seen. Rather than that, the sellers agreed with each other in advance on the price and kept it high regardless of whether the product was sold or not because they knew they would be beaten and expelled by the other sellers (and/or militia-police officers paid by those sellers) so those individuals who wanted to sell for cheaper were forced into that price. Of course, there was a lot of corruption among the officials responsible for "overseeing" the markets as well as the open criminals connected to that process. There was nothing new in the 90s - it was the same old mechanism on the larger scale. So, if you assume most people were fed up and wanted a market economy, that would by all means be an overstatement.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Another thing is that it is not easy to create democracy where it has never existed.

We had democracy between February 1917 and October 1917.

Originally Posted by Hanna

In Western Europe it happened more slowly, and things like corruption has been quite common in many countries until fairly recently. Not sure how much democratic Western Europe and the US really are though (it varies) but at least there is less obvious corruption.

That's an interesting topic. What do you think might be the reasons? What's the recipe to fight corruption?

What is democracy? If it is people's power, it does not exist anywhere.

Originally Posted by Marcus

What is democracy? If it is people's power, it does not exist anywhere.

On the opposite, some people are always at power (while the others are not), so the people's power exists everywhere.

Democracy is a way of governing a state that postulates the majority-regulated competition as a must to win access to the executive power. Not to be confused with freedom or similar philosophical concepts. Democracy does not automatically imply a market economy, those are rather different things. However, competition serves as foundation in both, so sometimes they are tied together.

Democracy is a way of governing a state that postulates the majority-regulated competition as a must to win access to the executive power.

Такого нигде нет и быть не может.