Thread: Думские выборы 2011

Моего кандидата - Против Всех - на выборы не допускают. А среди оставшихся никого не могу выбрать. Все они к последнему пункту подходят.

Explain one thing to me, please. How come there are plenty of Russians who are gonna vote for the commies? Hasn't the history taught them a thing?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Explain one thing to me, please. How come there are plenty of Russians who are gonna vote for the commies? Hasn't the history taught them a thing?

I'm 34 y.o. and I lived first 14 years of my life in Soviet Union. from my personal experience and from my parents' experience I can tell that it was far more fair and less corrupt society than we have currently in Russian Fed. Also current Communist Party of Russian Federation looks like the only real party except the ruling one. I have only two reasons against voting for them: 1 - they are still trying to idolize that monster Stalin and 2 - they are still called "communists" instead of changing the official name to social-democrats. But I understand that they have a heavy reasons for that: there are many people from generation of "old school communists" are still alive and among their supporters. After some time passes I belive they could get rid of those anachronisms.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I'm 34 y.o. and I lived first 14 years of my life in Soviet Union. from my personal experience and from my parents' experience I can tell that it was far more fair and less corrupt society than we have currently in Russian Fed. Also current Communist Party of Russian Federation looks like the only real party except the ruling one. I have only two reasons against voting for them: 1 - they are still trying to idolize that monster Stalin and 2 - they are still called "communists" instead of changing the official name to social-democrats. But I understand that they have a heavy reasons for that: there are many people from generation of "old school communists" are still alive and among their supporters. After some time passes I belive they could get rid of those anachronisms.

So, you think they ARE gonna change their attitude? I just don't see a reason they would do it. Somebody on here (I think Croc) has already stated that the commies a century ago didn't say anything about mass shootings or stealing private property either. They only talked about social equality and fairness just like their successors are doing now. It's just I wouldn't trust anyone who's shifted left too much.

Originally Posted by Basil77

they are still called "communists" instead of changing the official name to social-democrats. But I understand that they have a heavy reasons for that: there are many people from generation of "old school communists" are still alive and among their supporters. After some time passes I belive they could get rid of those anachronisms.

Could I humbly ask what makes you think that way? I can't really make those conclusions out of their program.

Also, as to your 14 years of life experience in the Soviet Union - I respect that. It was a little more for me, but that does not make much difference as both of us remember the USSR of the so-called "stagnation period". It might have been better life in those days than today in terms of less corruption and more social security, I agree. However, please notice that "magic fantasy" somehow ended rather abruptly because it couldn't sustain itself any longer. The economic prosperity of the major cities came at a price. There was a very big fight back then. In the beginning, the "war party" headed by Yuri Andropov had come to power just a few days after Brezhnev had died. And the military shift had begun with the keyword "Pershing 2" voiced in the radio and the TV in average every 10 minutes or so. But then, the "more conservative party" had ousted the "war party" letting it govern only a year and a half. However, the conservative party did not have a real leader, it was just the opposition of those who were afraid to start the WWIII. So, while in the internal fights, it tried to figure out their leader.

So, finally, the party which promoted Lenin's approach (НЭП) to the economic disaster had won because they had a seemingly more realistic plan. They simply convinced their opponents with the slogan: "what worked well in the past will work well in the future". The leader of that party was young and ambitious Michael Gorbachev. First, the government thought it would solve the economic issues by allowing some relatively minor elements of the market economy (the cooperatives on the small scale and хозрасчёт on the large scale). That started to work rather ugly, in part because people have lost the tradition on how that should be done properly, so the majority of people who took advantage were those who were traditionally close to markets at that time - in fact, the criminals and those [corrupt] policemen who supervised the markets. Second followed the idea of cutting on the major government expenses: the Afghan war and the monetary assistance to the socialist countries. That required some change in the official rhetoric. Unfortunately, due to the other factors those initiatives did not help to preserve the USSR and its Developed Socialism. Gorbachev had lost in the struggle which took an unforeseen turn and so the country had plunged into the 90-s.

To sum it up, the USSR of our childhood was artificial in many ways and couldn't sustain itself economically in the long run. I think, the leaders of the Soviet Republic had experimented enough. To make the KPRF win today in the [relatively] open and fair elections is like letting Hitler's party win. It gives them the full legitimacy to do whatever they want. Why? Because, it's the people's will! The people voted to end the "rotten democracy" and the "rotten capitalism". Does it make sense?

Originally Posted by Vadim M.

Моего кандидата - Против Всех - на выборы не допускают. А среди оставшихся никого не могу выбрать. Все они к последнему пункту подходят.

А чего можно добиться, голосуя "против всех"? Какая от этого польза? Я буду голосовать не "за", а "против".

Originally Posted by Ramil

А чего можно добиться, голосуя "против всех"? Какая от этого польза? Я буду голосовать не "за", а "против".

It's like you like apples but hate pears and peaches. Somebody tells you to choose between a pear and a peach. You tell him you choose neither, but he insists you choose one saying you can't just vote them out, and if you do there won't be pretty much useful of your choice. What would it look like to you?