Thread: Is Russia a democracy? Плюс то же о некоторых других странах

Originally Posted by Hanna

What are the big differences in the politics of Edinaya Rossiya and the second largest party?

This is what the second largest party is going to do:
Своей стратегической целью в долгосрочной перспективе называет построение в России «обновлённого социализма». В краткосрочной перспективе ставит перед собой задачи: приход к власти «патриотических сил», национализация недр и стратегических отраслей экономики с сохранением малого и среднего предпринимательства, усиление социальной направленности политики государства.

Originally Posted by E-learner

This is what the second largest party is going to do:
Своей стратегической целью в долгосрочной перспективе называет построение в России «обновлённого социализма». В краткосрочной перспективе ставит перед собой задачи: приход к власти «патриотических сил», национализация недр и стратегических отраслей экономики с сохранением малого и среднего предпринимательства, усиление социальной направленности политики государства.

Ok.. No version of real socialism can win an election anymore though. I think that's true for Russia too. The market forces against it are too strong.

There was a period, during which socialist parties won fair and square elections in Europe, but it's just too late. The forces that would oppose socialism are too strong, well organised and well prepared.

Plus, media has painted a (mostly false) horror vision of what life was like in socialist countries, using the worst examples, the worst periods and the most extreme excesses.

I think you are stuck with Edinnaya Rossiya then: If the closest opposition are serious communists/socialists. They can never actually win an election can they? Unless they set out for Revolution 2.0 they will never be in power.

It's a shame that it should be such a shambles democracy - but it's no worse than the USA. They can't achieve real change through the ballot either, for the same reason. They get essentially the same regardless of which party they vote for. Europe is getting closer to that situation every year.

Eric, prices were rounded up by producers. It's as simple as it gets. The official conversion rate was €1 = F6.55957. But the practical reality was quite different, and there are even sketches (made by people my own age) where one chap goes to buy his baguette (французская булка) and is asked F4 for it; then comes 2000 and again he goes to buy the same baguette, only this time its cost has magically risen to €1. Naturally, he calls the baker a variety of unprintable names. But he still has to fork up.

Hanna, thank you for your kind words. I am sorry to hear you have so far been less than favourably impressed by French people. Please bear in mind that those Frenchmen you have not met yet may well have the most interesting things to say.
My opinions are shared by a number of Frenchmen (one only has to read the hilarious comments on yahoo articles; sadly, it's in French only) but the reason you may not be aware of it is that they tend 1) not to mix with foreigners much, if at all and 2) to know no other language than their own, and be content with it.
For the record, although I'm French born and bred, I do not have one drop of French blood in my veins.

The CAP was a joke. I'm no expert and have no notion about Eastern European countries, but how in hell can we have a common agricultural policy when the soil is different and varies wildly from country to country? Add to that the quotas they have imposed on us and you just see how much stupidity eurocrats can come up with.

As I would not appreciate being accused of wearing rosy-tinted specs when it comes to the USSR, I would just like to take this opportunity to mention that I am quite aware of the millions sent to the gulags and of such like unpleasantness. My own Greek ancestors (on my father's side) lived for some 15 or 20 years there (roughly between 1923 and 1940) and to avoid being carted away to Siberia by comrade Stalin, finally decided to pack off and move to the Greek mainland. So yes, times could be both undemocratic and unpleasant, I do know that. But that was in the worst days of communism.

As for Russia, I was diligently reading my Russian textbook and came upon the subject of "монетизачия льгот". I couldn't help crying out "but that's SO unfair!". I can only imagine the plight of poor Russian elderly pensioners, and I do feel they are being hard done by. I am not advocating a nanny state but I feel that if true democracy is to set in, then the people should at least be listened to. Same goes for the Chernobyl liquidators. You save the world from immediate nuclear destruction, you rise to the call of duty, sacrifice your lives, your health and your future and what do you get? Shameless reduction of your invalidity pensions, very little gratitude and a lot of medals. Is something rotten in the state of Russia... I remember one post claiming that we mixed up everything from welfare state to democracy, lumped everything together... well, it's all linked up. If the people truly had power, their voices would be heard. That's what vox populi is all about.
If I were to be cynical about my country, I'd say that at this level of unpopularity any king, any czar would have abdicated. But our president still will not resign! Even taken with a pinch of salt, that just goes to show... And what democracy is this when the prominence of two parties is such that in order to vote against the incumbent you have to vote for his opponent, your distrust for whom being only a shade less strong because he happens not to be currently in power?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Here is what happened. They got scr%wed by the Banksters and everyone from the Spiegel, to BBC, RT and Washington Post knows it. Not to mention independent bloggers who first flagged it. We've said it here many times.

Goldman Sachs faces scrutiny over Greek debt swap | Business | theguardian.com
Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Goldman Sachs: the Greek connection - Business News - Business - The Independent
How the Monsters at Goldman Sachs Caused a Greek Tragedy | Alternet

After 30 years of right wing military dictatorship, with a corrupt elite, and a poor majority population hungry for basic financial stability Greece was an easy victim for these scammers after they were allowed into the Euro zone.

That's why many in the know call the EU, EUSSR.... (Deleted. L.)

Originally Posted by alexsms

Похоже, что Ваш уровень русского сильно вырос. Это уже хорошо.

Спасибо.

I think you have to be wary when using wikipedia sources and it's insufficient as an isolated, single source, imho. Plus, two sources cited by the article should raise red flags - meaning, they weren't good at all.

Originally Posted by Lady Maria

Eric, prices were rounded up by producers. It's as simple as it gets. The official conversion rate was €1 = F6.55957. But the practical reality was quite different, and there are even sketches (made by people my own age) where one chap goes to buy his baguette (французская булка) and is asked F4 for it; then comes 2000 and again he goes to buy the same baguette, only this time its cost has magically risen to €1. Naturally, he calls the baker a variety of unprintable names. But he still has to fork up.

Hanna, thank you for your kind words. I am sorry to hear you have so far been less than favourably impressed by French people. Please bear in mind that those Frenchmen you have not met yet may well have the most interesting things to say.
My opinions are shared by a number of Frenchmen (one only has to read the hilarious comments on yahoo articles; sadly, it's in French only) but the reason you may not be aware of it is that they tend 1) not to mix with foreigners much, if at all and 2) to know no other language than their own, and be content with it.
For the record, although I'm French born and bred, I do not have one drop of French blood in my veins.

The CAP was a joke. I'm no expert and have no notion about Eastern European countries, but how in hell can we have a common agricultural policy when the soil is different and varies wildly from country to country? Add to that the quotas they have imposed on us and you just see how much stupidity eurocrats can come up with.

As I would not appreciate being accused of wearing rosy-tinted specs when it comes to the USSR, I would just like to take this opportunity to mention that I am quite aware of the millions sent to the gulags and of such like unpleasantness. My own Greek ancestors (on my father's side) lived for some 15 or 20 years there (roughly between 1923 and 1940) and to avoid being carted away to Siberia by comrade Stalin, finally decided to pack off and move to the Greek mainland. So yes, times could be both undemocratic and unpleasant, I do know that. But that was in the worst days of communism.

As for Russia, I was diligently reading my Russian textbook and came upon the subject of "монетизачия льгот". I couldn't help crying out "but that's SO unfair!". I can only imagine the plight of poor Russian elderly pensioners, and I do feel they are being hard done by. I am not advocating a nanny state but I feel that if true democracy is to set in, then the people should at least be listened to. Same goes for the Chernobyl liquidators. You save the world from immediate nuclear destruction, you rise to the call of duty, sacrifice your lives, your health and your future and what do you get? Shameless reduction of your invalidity pensions, very little gratitude and a lot of medals. Is something rotten in the state of Russia... I remember one post claiming that we mixed up everything from welfare state to democracy, lumped everything together... well, it's all linked up. If the people truly had power, their voices would be heard. That's what vox populi is all about.
If I were to be cynical about my country, I'd say that at this level of unpopularity any king, any czar would have abdicated. But our president still will not resign! Even taken with a pinch of salt, that just goes to show... And what democracy is this when the prominence of two parties is such that in order to vote against the incumbent you have to vote for his opponent, while your distrust for him is only a shade less strong because he happens not to be currently in power?

I found it intriguing that people mostly discussed the definition of 'democracy' and compared it to its origins (i.e. Athenian democracy). I thought the mention of it by Antonio was good, though. Yes, it's described as the 'tyranny of the majority.' It's probably accurate. I would add, though, that it is domination by a select few over the dimwitted masses. Democracy doesn't work when there's so many foolish people. Also, one could argue that it works *perfectly* for the Elites or those who have power and control. Isn't it a matter of perspective? A totalitarian dictatorship might be simpler for those in power but a 'democracy' suggests legitimacy. Not to mention, these so-called democracies are being 'exported' to many countries.

But, many people don't get represented in a democracy and the rights/freedoms that are celebrated seem to be a sham. It is only allowed when the majority or State deem it acceptable but those aren't the principles which are its essence. Instead, it's a system to enable those with wealth, power and information. Those who are the best liars win elections and exercise political power. Billions of public (and sometimes private) money are spent in the attempts to secure political power. It's not about representing the people but serving which special interest groups invest in you.

Many people are uninformed in their own countries' politics and other countries' politics although you can obtain at least some insight with some time and effort. I noticed some replies here and I have the distinct impression they are not informed. I have emphasized previously that the political parties are ultimately the same, more or less. The mainstream parties are often so similar, that any differences are negligible. I posted videos showing this before the last American election. The feigned conflicts or divisions are merely for image and show. The media is owned, controlled or operated via powerful corporations either owned by Elites or those who own those shares. They have political pull so that it doesn't matter much which party is elected. This situation exists in most 'Western' countries.

In Sweden, it is interesting and can be contrasted with other countries such as the U.S. One powerful Jewish family owns half the media. The other half is owned by a collection of bankers. It is funny or ironic to see someone mention Goldman Sachs. They are part of the group that owns the other half. This company is called Schibsted. I'm not sure how it works in Russia exactly but we all know the State has a very vested interest in who owns or controls the mainstream media. They control how critical they are of the Kremlin. We know that the Putin regime is 'friendly' with the Oligarchs there. I would argue that democracy works in Russia if you take the p.o.v. that 'contemporary democracy' allows the enslavement of the people. If it allows theft of natural resources and privileges to a few. Then, sure, contemporary democracy works there as it 'works' in all the democratic countries. It is just a different picture but the same type of photographers.

It's mostly the left in power throughout most countries even when the banks have considerable influence in political and economic decisions. The terms some of the electorate and media use might deceive or mislead people but the policies these groups and parties use should reveal the realities.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

That's why many in the know call the EU, EUSSR.... (Deleted. L.)

За следующий переход на личности - 7 дней бан.

Originally Posted by Lampada

За следующий переход на личности - 7 дней бан.

Извини, что я нагрубил.

Вот на что я наткнулась в интернете. Как-то заставляет задуматься.. Знакомо?

http://echo.msk.ru/blog/dymarskiy/1195352-echo/

http://echo.msk.ru/blog/shenderovich/1195058-echo/

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I'm not sure how it works in Russia exactly but we all know the State has a very vested interest in who owns or controls the mainstream media. They control how critical they are of the Kremlin.

Mainstream media is state-controlled (One channel tried to become more independent about 10 years ago, and was suffocated, it still broadcasts but the leading anchors left or had to leave it). The programs are of dubious quality, targeted at primitive and herd instincts. I hear there is a TV series about Stalin shown on the central channel (now or recently). The majority of other channels are entertainment and movies. The so called 'opposition' proportion-wise have little access to the media.

During the election mostly the mainstream channels broadcast the pertaining information.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Is Russia now a total nightwatch liberal country where you need money for everything from hospital care, university education. Are there decent paying jobs for people and pensions for pensioners?

No, it isn't. Of course there are decent paying jobs, especially in Moscow.

Вопрос: а кому нужна демократия?
Пример: На Украине рейтинг президента 13% (рейтинг его партии 25%). Но это не помешает ему подписать важный договор с ЕС.

Originally Posted by Lakme

Вот на что я наткнулась в интернете. Как-то заставляет задуматься.. Знакомо? http://echo.msk.ru/blog/dymarskiy/1195352-echo/

Ну, а что делать?
Сначала кризис коммунистической идеологии.
Потом 25 лет без идеологии. Вернее, думали, что лозунг "обогащайтесь" заменит нам идеологию.
Теперь видим, что природа не терпит пустоты. Со всех сторон лезет чужая идеология. Русских девочек под идеологическим соусом успешно вербуют во "временные жёны" мусульманским джихадистам на Кавказе. Разве такое было возможно в советское время?
Давно пора самим заполнять вакуум в сфере идеологии. Иначе не выжить в этом добром мире. Идеология даёт сопротивляемость обществу. Это его иммунитет. Кстати, и в Германии, и в США, и во Франции есть своя идеология.
У нас в институте тоже проводилась идеологическая работа. Мы встречались с ветеранами отечественной войны, они рассказывали о ней. Причём, их слова часто выходили за рамки официальной пропаганды. Это были интересные люди: капитан первого ранга, экипаж подводной лодки С-13. И ничего страшного в этих встречах я не вижу.

Originally Posted by alexsms

I'd like to introduce this simple question (simple in form) and I suspect the answers might be unexpected. I hope this could be a kind of a poll (YES/NO or YES, but.. NO, but style) with comments; I also hope the answers are based on reasoning rather than pure emotions.

Russia and Democracy by DanielM

Russia has never had a democracy in the western sense of the word because that type of democracy is rooted in middle-class notions of political freedoms and Russia has never had a well-developed middle-class. The Russian notion of freedom is radically different from middle-class freedom. Culturally speaking, the Renaissance was the flowering of middle-class values expressed in art forms which despite their great beauty were expressions of the need of the middle-class to alienate and isolate itself from other classes. Russia never passed through the experiences of the Renaissance. The goal of middle-class freedoms embodied in western democracies is to protect by laws rich individuals and their riches from the masses of humanity. On one level, the Russians conceive of freedom as union with other individuals in a group in a way that is unknown to the western bourgeois mind. It is summed up in the word sobornost which is untranslatable. On another level, Russians have always been passionate about freedom meaning total freedom materially, intellectually and spiritually. All the great Russian men who lived with this ideal of freedom are loved by Russians and they always lived tragic lives. Read Dostoevsky’s Notes From The Underground if you want a taste of this kind of freedom. A Europeanized Russian risks being no longer a Russian. A Europeanized democracy can not exist in Russia because only the freedom forever alive in the soul of the great masses of Russians is Russian freedom and it is impossible to organize politically such freedom using western logic.

Originally Posted by DanielM

Russia and Democracy by DanielM

Russia has never had a democracy in the western sense of the word because that type of democracy is rooted in middle-class notions of political freedoms and Russia has never had a well-developed middle-class. The Russian notion of freedom is radically different from middle-class freedom. Culturally speaking, the Renaissance was the flowering of middle-class values expressed in art forms which despite their great beauty were expressions of the need of the middle-class to alienate and isolate itself from other classes. Russia never passed through the experiences of the Renaissance. The goal of middle-class freedoms embodied in western democracies is to protect by laws rich individuals and their riches from the masses of humanity. On one level, the Russians conceive of freedom as union with other individuals in a group in a way that is unknown to the western bourgeois mind. It is summed up in the word sobornost which is untranslatable. On another level, Russians have always been passionate about freedom meaning total freedom materially, intellectually and spiritually. All the great Russian men who lived with this ideal of freedom are loved by Russians and they always lived tragic lives. Read Dostoevsky’s Notes From The Underground if you want a taste of this kind of freedom. A Europeanized Russian risks being no longer a Russian. A Europeanized democracy can not exist in Russia because only the freedom forever alive in the soul of the great masses of Russians is Russian freedom and it is impossible to organize politically such freedom using western logic.

Welcome Daniel!

Originally Posted by Юрка

У нас в институте тоже проводилась идеологическая работа. Мы встречались с ветеранами отечественной войны, они рассказывали о ней. Причём, их слова часто выходили за рамки официальной пропаганды. Это были интересные люди: капитан первого ранга, экипаж подводной лодки С-13. И ничего страшного в этих встречах я не вижу.

Ссылка та - это всего лишь один маленький пример, который, на мой взгляд, показывает, в каком направлении мы движемся.
Думаю, что слова тут не нужны - примеры говорят сами за себя. И таких примеров очень и очень много.

Originally Posted by DanielM

Russia never passed through the experiences of the Renaissance.

Some shadow of Renaissance may have visited Russia in what they call the Golden Age (which gave rise to world famous literature, including Dostoevsky); it's not the European Renaissance in its pure sense, of course. With all that in mind, serfdom was abolished in 1861 only (cf, underground rail opened in London in 1863), tsar who abolished it was killed 20 years later (in the 5th attempt), reaction followed, turn of the century, 1905, 1917... Seems like no time for middle class to appear.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that Karl Marx and his "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" didn't have in mind the middle-classes or Germany alone... Had it been the case, surely the USSR wouldn't have stolen the motto.

Originally Posted by Lady Maria

I'm no expert but it seems to me that Karl Marx and his "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" didn't have in mind the middle-classes or Germany alone... Had it been the case, surely the USSR wouldn't have stolen the motto.

I don't think they took it so much. The problem that Russia had after the proper revolution, was that Marx theory didn't fit Russian conditions. Marx said the socialist revolutions will happen in industrialised states. His entire philosophy was based on that. But Russia was not industrialised at the time. So Lenin refined/tweaked it to fit the Russian conditions (Leninism).
And when they implemented socialism in Eastern Europe, they did it a lot more slowly and methodically, not in a dramatic revolutionary fashion.

Many people who were communists totally rejected the USSR because it had a motto which went something like "socialism in one country first", and said to defend the accomplishments with violence if necessary. I think that essentially goes against Marxism.

Marx was an internationalist and didn't believe in nation states or national armies. So there was quite a clash between what the USSR did, and textbook Marxism, early on. But some Communists thought Lenin was more practical than Marx, and became Leninists. There is also quite a big difference between Leninism and Maoism, but I must say I don't know precisely what that is/was about.

Meanwhile, interestingly, no industrial state has had a sponteneous socialist revolution unless you count election victories in a few South American states recently. It might still happen in the future, but as of right now, it looks like Marx theories remain theoretical...

In my childhood I used to wait for the bus home, next to a socialist bookshop, and lord almighty, were these people prolific writers, or what! They had exhibitions in the window with all books by so-and-so and it was mind blowing how much these political philosophers and statesmen managed to write. Anyone who's anyone in socialism has written at least 10 books and for every book there are 10 more books discussing the original. I wonder if anyone reads that stuff anymore?

Oops I just realised that this is a deviation from the topic. I suppose it might have to be deleted.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Спасибо.

I think you have to be wary when using wikipedia sources and it's insufficient as an isolated, single source, imho. Plus, two sources cited by the article should raise red flags - meaning, they weren't good at all.


I found it intriguing that people mostly discussed the definition of 'democracy' and compared it to its origins (i.e. Athenian democracy). I thought the mention of it by Antonio was good, though. Yes, it's described as the 'tyranny of the majority.' It's probably accurate. I would add, though, that it is domination by a select few over the dimwitted masses. Democracy doesn't work when there's so many foolish people. Also, one could argue that it works *perfectly* for the Elites or those who have power and control. Isn't it a matter of perspective? A totalitarian dictatorship might be simpler for those in power but a 'democracy' suggests legitimacy. Not to mention, these so-called democracies are being 'exported' to many countries.

But, many people don't get represented in a democracy and the rights/freedoms that are celebrated seem to be a sham. It is only allowed when the majority or State deem it acceptable but those aren't the principles which are its essence. Instead, it's a system to enable those with wealth, power and information. Those who are the best liars win elections and exercise political power. Billions of public (and sometimes private) money are spent in the attempts to secure political power. It's not about representing the people but serving which special interest groups invest in you.

Many people are uninformed in their own countries' politics and other countries' politics although you can obtain at least some insight with some time and effort. I noticed some replies here and I have the distinct impression they are not informed. I have emphasized previously that the political parties are ultimately the same, more or less. The mainstream parties are often so similar, that any differences are negligible. I posted videos showing this before the last American election. The feigned conflicts or divisions are merely for image and show. The media is owned, controlled or operated via powerful corporations either owned by Elites or those who own those shares. They have political pull so that it doesn't matter much which party is elected. This situation exists in most 'Western' countries.

In Sweden, it is interesting and can be contrasted with other countries such as the U.S. One powerful Jewish family owns half the media. The other half is owned by a collection of bankers. It is funny or ironic to see someone mention Goldman Sachs. They are part of the group that owns the other half. This company is called Schibsted. I'm not sure how it works in Russia exactly but we all know the State has a very vested interest in who owns or controls the mainstream media. They control how critical they are of the Kremlin. We know that the Putin regime is 'friendly' with the Oligarchs there. I would argue that democracy works in Russia if you take the p.o.v. that 'contemporary democracy' allows the enslavement of the people. If it allows theft of natural resources and privileges to a few. Then, sure, contemporary democracy works there as it 'works' in all the democratic countries. It is just a different picture but the same type of photographers.

It's mostly the left in power throughout most countries even when the banks have considerable influence in political and economic decisions. The terms some of the electorate and media use might deceive or mislead people but the policies these groups and parties use should reveal the realities.

"Who are you and what did you do to the real 14Russian?"
Suddenly you've made a u-turn. This post was the most sympathetic one I've ever seen from you.

At least, this "evil western style democracy" won't let this happen:

Some creepy stuff

У нас в институте тоже проводилась идеологическая работа. Мы встречались с ветеранами отечественной войны, они рассказывали о ней.

Хорошо было бы замутить дела так, чтобы встречи с ветеранами были, а слова "идеологическая работа" к ним не применялись. Но нет.