Thread: G8 Summit and Russia's Prez

As we all know (hopefully ) Russia hosted the G8 Summit this year in St. Petersburg. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is a former KGB colonel who was stationed in East Germany. He's probably a communist at heart, and if he isn't he's got a funny was of showing it: he's revised the Russian constitution to expand government control on everything, including the media, and limit public voting for office. He's slowly turning the country back to Soviet times. In fact, he called the collapse of the USSR "the worst political disaster of the century" or something along those lines. Those weren't his exact words but it was the same general idea--he's not happy the Soviet Union is no more, and unless something can be done to stop what he's done to the political situation in Russia, a Soviet-like regime may be back

Any thoughts on any of this?

Well, the fact that the communist party is in opposition to him, kind of counters those points. I doubt a soviet-like government will ever come back, in fact most "reforms" point away from that. Like removing subsidies of the pensionists, making the rouble fully convertable, encouraging foreign investors (stockman for example), etc. etc.

I would rather call him a neo-tsar than a neo-communist. He just wants a strong and stable Russia.

Well, the fact that the communist party is in opposition to him, kind of counters those points.

No, communists are those who are in power now. The people you've mentioned are just marginals that are held up by the retired and their nostalgia about the Soviet time. They can't be the true opposition, because as a factor of matt we have a one-party system. The party that's governing now is a clone of the former CPSU. In addition the communistic anthem has been restored.


[/code][/quote]

And he's gonna make bears back to the streets! That's for sure!

Russia is like a tram. No matter who sits on the driver's seat, it will still go along the rails.

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

a Soviet-like regime may be back

It would be great man, yeah, it would be really great. I'm missing free education, free apartments, the low crime level, free medecine and the real freedom for all. Unfortunatly it never comes back.

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

As we all know (hopefully ) Russian hosted the G8 Summit this year in St. Petersburg. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is a former KGB colonel who was stationed in East Germany. He's probably a communist at heart, and if he isn't he's got a funny was of showing it: he's revised the Russian constitution to expand government control on everything, including the media, and limit public voting for office. He's slowly turning the country back to Soviet times. In fact, he called the collapse of the USSR "the worst political disaster of the century" or something along those lines. Those weren't his exact words but it was the same general idea--he's not happy the Soviet Union is no more, and unless something can be done to stop what he's done to the political situation in Russia, a Soviet-like regime may be back

Any thoughts on any of this?

I completely agree, what the collapse of the USSR was a worst political disaster of the century.
I don't think, what Putin is "slowly turning the country back to Soviet times", however. Because:

- in Soviet times, there was no open multi-party system (and one-party system was even declared in Soviet constitution until 1990). Now, the parties and social movements are really countless.
- in Soviet times were no free alternative elections (and almost no elections at all, only 100% formal elections of the deputies of the Supreme Council). Now there are lots of elections, with are alternative: there are typically up to 10 candidates to President's post, and 20-30 parties/movements participating in Duma elections.
- there was almost no freedom of speech and non-government media did not exist. Now, there is a lot of private newspapers, radio and TV companies.
- finally, there was almost no economical freedom -- and now there are a lot of private and partially private companies and corporations.

So, where's the "turning back to the USSR"? Putin is smart enough not to repeat mistakes of the old...

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

a Soviet-like regime may be back

It would be great man, yeah, it would be really great. I'm missing free education, free apartments, the low crime level, free medecine and the real freedom for all. Unfortunatly it never comes back.

Well, while I'm not a Putin-hater, I have to disagree.
Education is still free if you mean universities. Not very easy to enter one for free but still possible. If you mean ultra-popular universities of Moscow, there sould be some "filter" anyway. Are bribes and блат better than official payment?
Free appartments - if you mean коммуналки, then yes. I used to live in one. I would prefer a rented flat to living in коммуналка.
Low crime level - I see no difference. Except that in USSR crimes were not so widely spoken about on TV (which perhaps was good).
Free medicine - there was one but the quality was on the same level as the price (paid indirectly through taxes).
Real freedom - well we were free and still we are free. Who took your freedom away?
The positive thing the present government is trying to do is not the restoration of USSR, but actually bringing Russia to a normal social and economic level - the thing that was equally missing in USSR and after its breakdown.

But, JJ, they respect your opinion about free appartments and will retain the last 5-floor "хрущевка" building in Moscow as a memorial:
http://www.vesti.ru/news.html?id=96350

Originally Posted by pisces

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

a Soviet-like regime may be back

It would be great man, yeah, it would be really great. I'm missing free education, free apartments, the low crime level, free medecine and the real freedom for all. Unfortunatly it never comes back.

Well, while I'm not a Putin-hater, I have to disagree.
Education is still free if you mean universities. Not very easy to enter one for free but still possible. If you mean ultra-popular universities of Moscow, there sould be some "filter" anyway. Are bribes and блат better than official payment?

Formally, the higher education is still free, but in fact...
As time goes, more and more "commercial" faculties, less and less free ones.

Originally Posted by pisces

Free appartments - if you mean коммуналки, then yes. I used to live in one. I would prefer a rented flat to living in коммуналка.

Why necessary communal flats? Lots of people got a quite normal, 1-, 2- and even 3-room apartments. Now these flats cost a significant amount of money.

Originally Posted by pisces

Low crime level - I see no difference. Except that in USSR crimes were not so widely spoken about on TV (which perhaps was good).

The crime level *definitely* was much lower! If you compare number of really hard crimes (like, with use of firearms...) -- I'm afraid, the present rate is *orders* higher than in Soviet times!

Originally Posted by pisces

Free medicine - there was one but the quality was on the same level as the price (paid indirectly through taxes).

For free, the Soviet medicine was really not bad (which was admitted by the UNHCR, for examples).
And, BTW, the modern medicine isn't so good, especially thinking how non-free now it is.

Originally Posted by pisces

Real freedom - well we were free and still we are free. Who took your freedom away?

I always thought, what *freedom* is a very personal thing in fact. Like, if some person want to be free -- he *will* be free (in any country and any times). Alas, 99% of people just don't want and need to be free (regardless of country and political system, too).

Originally Posted by pisces

The positive thing the present government is trying to do is not the restoration of USSR, but actually bringing Russia to a normal social and economic level - the thing that was equally missing in USSR and after its breakdown.

Agreed completely.

That's pretty stupid to compare what's going on now with the Soviet times. In both cases we live much worse than people in the West. While the West went ahead in profress, with our free good for nothing education we learnt how to take out tonsils by gas-cutting through the anus. What's the use in getting educated for free if you could not apply your knowledge. We heard of plenty of good engineers who never saw their inventions introduced.

Now medicine, all I remember for the retired there was only baralgin in cemists's, not like it is now. That's what free medicine could suggest. And nothing from diareha, except manganese crystals. All good farmaceuticals were in deficit. All good things were in deficit.

But the worst thing about the Soviet styile was that a bunch of gray and stupid people directed you how you must live. Especially when you know that those people think more about their own prosperity than the prosperety of the state. So, all that you see now did not appear yesterday, but was fostered by the Soviet regime. People who never had anything can only bow at the foot of authorites to ask for some food and drink a lot and call it freedom.

The moral degradation of the Homo Sovetucus was growing so rapidly that eventually it was about to take over the Soviet power and burst out (for example to occupy some new European or Asian countries).

Why necessary communal flats? Lots of people got a quite normal, 1-, 2- and even 3-room apartments. Now these flats cost a significant amount of money.

I stayed with a babushka in Kazan who had a nice 2 bedroomed, good sized apartment that was given to her and her husband in the Soviet days. I imagine it's worth a lot now.


The fact is RussiSlav, Americans think Communism is evil? Why?.... it just is. The reason why they think so is because America was basically a major capitalist country from the start, so communism therefore goes against everything it stands for (on paper).

I am from the UK. Although there is the general idea that communism is bad, we take (and took) a far more rational view. We aren't so millitantly anti-communist. In fact there was quite a large Socialist movement in Britain in the 50s and 60s or somethin (I think).

The whole point is, if you compare life in today's Russia with life in the Soviet Union you will find:

There is now more crime (you didn't wanna mess with a authoritarian regime).
There was free education then.
There was free accomodation then.
There was free medical care then. (The Soviet Union was well known for it's excellent doctors)

So what about freedom of speech and personal freedom? If your own and your family's life was good and safe would you really be too bothered if the newspaper was actually telling you the truth or some propoganda to keep you happy?

Well, all coins have their back sides. While Communism might have had some benefits it had also alot of disadvantages. Communism per se isn't necessarily bad, it is how it is implemented that has gone awry.

For all the great promises of communism, it has one major flaw: It doesn't work.

I say that now it's overall better in Russia than it was during Soviet times... And if any consolation there is some progress in a right direction which matters the most...

I dont think most american's realize that you can't ever really choose your own goverment. In a capitalist society, the govt is run by big business. In a communist society, the govt runs big business.

One of the many things people fear from communism is the govt owning all of the property. But let's say you by a 400,000 dollar house in America, and take out a 30 year loan to pay it off, with a rediculous interest rate. Are you ever going to really own this house? No. Most people move withing a few years anyways, taking the equity and using it as a down payment on another house they, themselves will never own, making endless payments to bank who is run by a billionair who sits behind at a cushy office desk.

Id'd much rather live in a house that was own by the state. Communism and capitalism are two diffrent types of goverments for diffrent types of people. If your dream is to make big money by taking big risks and spending lots of money. Then America is the place for you. But face it, not EVERYBODY can be a CEO. Not everybody will ever own their own busniess.

Freedom of religion is also kind of scary... Not, that the fact that people shouldn't be able to practice whatever religion they want... But the fact that our president makes public statements about how he talks to god and has visions and such, when not everybody believes in his god.

Last week he veto'd the bill to increase funding for stem cell research because it uses live cells from embreyos (spelling) of fetuses that will never be born. Well sorry if thats against your religion, but its not against mine. If im dying from lung cancer and i could be saved by growing cells from my own body, but its against the law because the presedent doesnt think its what 'god' would want. F*** that. I need a new lung.

Lets face it. The state religion, officially or unofficially of the United States is Christianity... And if you arn't a christian you don't fit in.

Its not like people couldnt practice religions in the soviet union. If this were so then all of the the cathedrals and churches and palaces would have been torn down in the name of atheism. People could practice whatever religion they wanted as long as they didn't shove it in other peoples faces, and there was no gov't to say "This is, or isnt going to be against the law because its against my religion".

The only downside ive seen so far to soviet communism is you can never be a millinaire, on paper. But hey, Im not a millionaire right now, I probly never will be.

Id trade in my 2005 Mercedes and summer home in vermont (if i had these) for free healthcare, free education, free housing, and not having to worry about being mugged walking home from the store after dark. But hey thats just me, call me crazy.

Its not as if life was so diffrent between CCCP and USA to begin with. In USA, you want to drop out of highschool, well good for you. Go work at mcdonalds. In CCCP, you dont go to school, go plow a field in kazakhstan. In USA, if you have the money for college, well you're lucky. In CCCP, you have a talent. Here go take some classes. The system wasnt that much diffrent than what I've seen in most other modern europian countries, or even australia for that matter.

You go to school to learn about what you're good at. You want to be a doctor, be a doctor. You want to be a linguist (Yes please!) be a linguist. Want to be a bum? Go plow a field.

+1
+1

Actually, there were some wrong things in that time but for sure they were not a lack of freedom... there were just another rules for playing... just another life goals.

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Last week he veto'd the bill to increase funding for stem cell research because it uses live cells from embreyos (spelling) of fetuses that will never be born. Well sorry if thats against your religion, but its not against mine. If im dying from lung cancer and i could be saved by growing cells from my own body, but its against the law because the presedent doesnt think its what 'god' would want. F*** that. I need a new lung.

Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Now medicine, all I remember for the retired there was only baralgin in cemists's, not like it is now. That's what free medicine could suggest. And nothing from diareha, except manganese crystals. All good farmaceuticals were in deficit. All good things were in deficit.
...

Messages like these always make me wonder: why there's no remedy from *verbal* diarrhea in drug stores?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.

That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing federal funding for that research.

Messages like these always make me wonder: why there's no remedy from *verbal* diarrhea in drug stores?

Listen, if you don't know what to say on the subject, shut please your mouth up and remain quiet. Comment on the subject, not on messages that are not to you, ok? If you want to comment on someone's messages, start your own thread and post your unsubstantiated comments about everythinhg you want, ok?

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.

That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing federal funding for that research.

True you are. The state of California has allowed such research through a proposition not long aho, but I think the Senate is challenging it...