# Forum About Russia Politics  Is Russia a democracy? Плюс то же о некоторых других странах

## 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.

----------


## Dmitry Khomichuk

The first question is what is DEMOCRACY?

----------


## alexsms

Ok. Thanks for your interest, Dmitry.
The assumption is 'democracy' in its modern sense (as system and form of government, I was thinking it was not necessary to elaborate on that, but perhaps we could somewhere digress and suggest the criteria if necessary); let's assume that no reference to Ancient Greece and 'literal rule of people' is required, let's focus on the MODERN idea.
Let's assume that the English sentence 'Is Russia a democracy?' = the Russian sentence 'Считаете ли вы, что в России демократия?'. And let's assume this translation is valid. I've suggested the Russian translation for clarification of the English sentence. 
So the question is also Считаете ли вы, что в России демократия?
I would be happy, Dmitry, if you could define Belarus as well, but for the moment let's focus on RUSSIA.

----------


## dtrq

Not just democracy, but sovereign democracy.

----------


## Hanna

*There is no such thing as a perfect democracy.*  
The actual democratic system in Russia, according to many, is is superior to that in plain "first past the post" democracies such as the UK and USA. It's more modern, taking into account 20th century research in political science, while the UK system for instance, is ancient, and geared towards a society that existed 300 years ago. 
The question is whether the system is adhered to, how much corruption there is in the system, and whether the population of Russia at large, cares about any of this.  
There are various levels of corruption in most democracies, whether it is legitimate, legal through lobbying, or illegal through bribes.  
Then, there is the matter of who votes, and how.  
If under 70% actually vote, is the decision legitimate? 
Should everybody be forced to vote, like in Australia? 
Should only people with a permanent, registered address be allowed to vote, like in the UK? Should prisoners be prevented from voting, as happens in the UK?    
What if a country has a substantial population of non-citizens?
What about people who are too uneducated and frankly, stupid, to make an informed choice? People who choose to "sell" their vote? 
So, my question would be; is Russia democratic, *in comparison to what country?* 
..in comparison to the USA? To the USSR? EU? or the Greek ideal?  
The concept of democracy as per Greek political philosophers was only intended to be applied in small city-states, and given to free men (as opposed to slaves, women). That's all they ever envisaged. Nobody had any notion of applying it to a geographically large country, or a country with a huge population with varying levels of interests and education.  
Any definition of democracy since then, is just a local interpretation/adaptation of what democracy could/should be, according to constitution writers. 
If election themselves are proof of democracy - well any country might hold them, and they might offer multiple choices and secrecy of the ballot, without being perceived as democracies. 
Afghanistan is a "democracy", instated by none less than the USA. Iraq too.....

----------


## Юрка

> Is Russia a democracy?

 Этот вопрос по своей структуре и последствиям похож на вопрос, решаемый в своё время святой инквизицией: "являются ли индейцы божьими тварями?".
Вроде чистая философия и любознательность, а на самом деле имелось в виду "можно ли их убивать?".
Поэтому я готов впрячься в эту дискуссию, сразу изменив её вектор, задав другие (отчасти риторические) вопросы: 
- Является ли демократия идеалом, на который надо молиться?
- Является ли борьба (интересов, групп, партий) основой демократии?
- Отличаются ли страны с продвинутой демократией миролюбием?
- Известны ли людям другие основы совместного существования, кроме борьбы? 
Над этими вопросами думали в России уже сто лет назад. И соборность рассматривалась как альтернатива демократии. Но император был поклонником Запада (как многие наши императоры). Поэтому в качестве пути был выбран парламент и борьба партий. И привело это всё к самоуничтожению. У нас в обществе и сейчас уровень взаимной ненависти зашкаливает. Поэтому я боюсь наступать на эти западные грабли под названием демократия.

----------


## Dmitry Khomichuk

У меня вот как раз и был вопрос, что конкретно ты называешь "демократией"? Определение типа "всем и так понятно" меня не устраивает. 
 Если брать классическое определение, то это просто метод принятия решения. У нас может быть и демократическая диктатура, и демократчиеская монархия, и демократическая теократия. 
 Все дружно, честно выбрали себе диктатора, а потом строем и с песнями принялись исполнять его указания. Как в принципе изначально в Римской Республике и было. Диктатор избирался демократически (но уже и тут, блин, проблема; демократически - но среди определенного слоя населения только) для решения какой-нибудь задачи. 
 Но по твоему вопросу видно, что ты считаешь "демократию" некой независимой политической системой. А сейчас в мире на неё все тупо молятся как на священную корову. При этом при вопросе, что же они имеют ввиду под ней, зачастую ответы выглядят как: "Да ты что???", "Всем и так понятно" и т.д. 
А я вот тупой и мне не понятно. Я не понимаю как можно говорить, что что-то чему соответствует (Россия демократии) не имея конкретных признаков явления. 
 Короче вопрос настолько левый, размытый и провокационный, что я устраняюсь от дальнейшего участия в этой теме. )

----------


## alexsms

> So, my question would be; is Russia democratic, *in comparison to what country?* 
> ..in comparison to the USA? To the USSR? EU? or the Greek ideal?

 I will try to keep the position of the vector, the question was probably too simple, cos I am interested in what people think (mostly what non-Russians think, as I can generally anticipate what Russians could say): Do you think that Russia's democracy or not? - that's the implication. 
as for your comparison introduction, Hanna, here are the brief comments:
in comparison to the USA? - NO
To the USSR? - YES
EU? - NO
or the Greek ideal? - The assumption in the beginning was that the modern sense of the word is considered. Thanks for reminding of the 'city-states' and further implication that the Ancient Greece idea was local and practical for governing of a city-state not a country (my suggestion was that we don't need the true and pure original Hellenic meaning, and apply the modern meaning, which is still not defined explicitly here, but for now let's see what people think if the question remains as it is).

----------


## Юрка

> brief comments:
> in comparison to the USA? - NO
> To the USSR? - YES
> EU? - NO
> or the Greek ideal?

 Это-то и настораживает, что ответы должны быть краткими (для нажатия кнопки "пуск" другого и не нужно), а демократия остаётся необсуждаемым идеалом (как христианство в средние века).
Если же предлагается просто игра в четыре слова (Россия, демократия, да, нет), то это не интересно.

----------


## DrBaldhead

During the last elections day (our laws consider to conduct all the elections in one certain day of the year now) I was to vote for four times and each time there was a huge list of candidates. That day we elected: the city's mayor, deputies for the regional parlament (as party candidates), deputies for regional parlament (non-party candidates), deputies for the city's "kind of parlament". 
So we may not be an ideal democracy, but surely there are plenty of elections to vote.

----------


## maxmixiv

Russia has many good laws. But in real life...

----------


## alexsms

> Этот вопрос по своей структуре и последствиям похож на вопрос, решаемый в своё время святой инквизицией: "являются ли индейцы божьими тварями?".
> Вроде чистая философия и любознательность, а на самом деле имелось в виду "можно ли их убивать?".
> Поэтому я готов впрячься в эту дискуссию, сразу изменив её вектор, задав другие (отчасти риторические) вопросы: 
> - Является ли демократия идеалом, на который надо молиться?
> - Является ли борьба (интересов, групп, партий) основой демократии?
> - Отличаются ли страны с продвинутой демократией миролюбием?
> - Известны ли людям другие основы совместного существования, кроме борьбы? 
> Над этими вопросами думали в России уже сто лет назад. И соборность рассматривалась как альтернатива демократии. Но император был поклонником Запада (как многие наши императоры). Поэтому в качестве пути был выбран парламент и борьба партий. И привело это всё к самоуничтожению. У нас в обществе и сейчас уровень взаимной ненависти зашкаливает. Поэтому я боюсь наступать на эти западные грабли под названием демократия.

 Попробую сохранить первоначальный вектор. 
Формальная структура такая же, как в вопросе об индейцах, т.е. "Является ли Россия демократическим государством" (in English 'democracy' в данном случае = русск. "демократическое государство")
Последствия создаем мы с вами, как участники дискуссии (т.е. заранее они НЕ заданы).  _- Является ли демократия идеалом, на который надо молиться?_ - Считаем, что это многосторонее явление (для кого-то это может быть идеалом, для кого-то нет). Молиться предложим ч/к-либо другому. _- Является ли борьба (интересов, групп, партий) основой демократии?_ - Считаем, что это её обязательный элемент, при условии, что это борьба без применения насилия. _- Отличаются ли страны с продвинутой демократией миролюбием?_ - Пока что сложно определить (можно сравнить разные страны). Неплохо бы также выяснить, является ли "миролюбие" (и по отношению к кому) обязательным условием демократии.  _- Известны ли людям другие основы совместного существования, кроме борьбы?_ - Очевидно, известны. Вопрос, кажется, более философский, чем практический. Можно ли принять, что "вся жизнь всех людей в любое время в любом обществе - всегда борьба"?

----------


## alexsms

> Это-то и настораживает, что ответы должны быть краткими.

 НЕ должны, 
Любые ответы могут быть интересны участникам.

----------


## alexsms

> Not just democracy, but sovereign democracy.

 We might discuss it later. It seems to be a newly coined term.

----------


## Paul G.

"Будут с водкою дебаты, отвечай: нет, ребята-демократы, только чай!" © В. Высоцкий.
(желательно Ахмад и непременно горячий - это уже от меня) 
Непонятно, что есть "демократические страны". Это самоназвание? Для меня демократическая страна (на данный исторический момент) - это страна с развитым местным самоуправлением (не фиктивным, а именно настоящим) и максимально непосредственным доступом граждан к принятию решений на уровне всего общества или государства. 
Наиболее полно этому критерию соответствует, например, Швейцария. 
Все остальные европейские страны (включая США, как страну в целом европейской культуры, хоть и видоизмененной) в той или иной степени являются левацко-олигархическими мутантами, разжиревшими от грабежа колоний и/или набранных кредитов. Никакой демократией там и не пахнет.

----------


## Hanna

> I will try to keep the position of the vector, the question was probably too simple, cos I am interested in what people think (mostly what non-Russians think, as I can generally anticipate what Russians could say): Do you think that Russia's democracy or not? - that's the implication. 
> as for your comparison introduction, Hanna, here are the brief comments:
> in comparison to the USA? - NO
> To the USSR? - YES
> EU? - NO
> or the Greek ideal? - The assumption in the beginning was that the modern sense of the word is considered. Thanks for reminding of the 'city-states' and further implication that the Ancient Greece idea was local and practical for governing of a city-state not a country (my suggestion was that we don't need the true and pure original Hellenic meaning, and apply the modern meaning, which is still not defined explicitly here, but for now let's see what people think if the question remains as it is).

 I don't think Russia is less democratic than any of those examples, with the exception, maybe, of the USSR.  
There are some VERY serious issues with the democracy in the EU, which is mainly run by the Commission, a meritocracy (not elected) which is very much an "old-boys" club from various networks and groups with political power across the continent. The Parliament is democratic but does not have a lot of power, less than half of Europeans even vote in the election, or understand how it works.
Additionally; the EU was set up as a free-trade area, not as a democratic "state", although that's what it's now merging into.  
The Commission is very heavily lobbied by corporate interests, with unlimited funds (=corruption with a thin veneer of respectability). I actually have old friends who work at various bureacracy jobs in Brussels and everyone, even the insiders and believers in the EU as a concept (which includes myself) are well aware of the disturbing lack of democracy - open to abuse.  
The United States as a democracy suffers from some very major flaws as a credible democracy, as no doubts all educated and open-eyed Americans are aware. Some of these are similar to the EU. Since the thread is about Russia, let's not get into it, but like I said: It's well known within the subject of Political Science, just for starters.  
I would hold up *SWITZERLAND* as a country that is very close to the democratic ideal. If you are interested, I can explain why. It is probably the most "democratic" country in Europe, at least, for a number of reasons.   *Russia and the USA / EU simply have different issues as democracies.* 
While Russia has more obvious corruption, the same thing occurs in Western Countries under the guise of "Corporate hospitality", lobbying etc. 
Same-same, no difference...  
As soon as you get rid of *open corruption, and widespread contempt for democracy*, that seems to exist in Russia, you'll be no worse at all than any other so called democracy.  
In terms of *police brutality* etc - I don't see you being much worse off than people in the US, UK. Just look at Occupy movement how it was treated, terror laws, NSA spying, Wikileaks persecution, and the clank-down on any anti-globalist demonstration or movement. They kick drunks too (I've seen police in two Western countries do it) and sometimes beat up arrested people, although it's getting less common.   *So my answer is that Russia is only very marginally less democratic than the countries you mentioned*, if at all.  
The issue I would have, is with corruption/bribes as a threat to democracy. 
India, the world's largest democracy has the same problem, and countless others. So Russia is not alone and there is no need to judge yourself harshly about it. Just try to stop corruption...  
In terms of foreign policy, I am having increasing respect for Russia as a moderate force - recently did a fantastic job with Syria.

----------


## Юрка

> Считаем, что это её обязательный элемент, при условии, что это борьба без применения насилия.

 Это отталкивает. К примеру, не все исходят из того, что семья, коллектив, природа - это неизбежная борьба, победа сильного над слабым и т.д.  

> _- Отличаются ли страны с продвинутой демократией миролюбием?_ - Пока что сложно определить (можно сравнить разные страны).

 Сильно заморачиваться не стоит. Древние греки воевали, современная Америка воюет. Этого достаточно, чтобы сделать вывод: демократия не гарантирует миролюбия во внешней политике.  

> _Известны ли людям другие основы совместного существования, кроме борьбы?_ - Очевидно, известны. Вопрос, кажется, более философский, чем практический. Можно ли принять, что "вся жизнь всех людей в любое время в любом обществе - всегда борьба"?

 Борьба - не очень эффективный способ жить, так как много сил уходит впустую. Очевидно, что чем меньше борьбы, тем эффективнее можно работать, созидать, управлять. Демократические страны любят снимать фильмы про то, как львы в саванне пожирают буйволов, но это не единственный способ существования.

----------


## alexsms

> Это отталкивает. К примеру, не все исходят из того, что семья, коллектив, природа - это неизбежная борьба, победа сильного над слабым и т.д.

 Предлагаем считать, что наличие нескольких партий является обязательным элементом (т.е. если будет ОДНА партия, т.е. по определению это НЕдемократия). При этом должна быть политическая борьба между ними (т.е. считаем, что борьба между партиями не приравнивается борьбе сильного со слабым в природе).

----------


## alexsms

> Древние греки воевали, современная Америка воюет. Этого достаточно, чтобы сделать вывод: демократия не гарантирует миролюбия во внешней политике.

 Вывод совершенно логичный.

----------


## SergeMak

> Предлагаем считать, что наличие нескольких партий является обязательным элементом (т.е. если будет ОДНА партия, т.е. по определению это НЕдемократия)

 А у древних греков были политические партии?

----------


## UhOhXplode

> I will try to keep the position of the vector, the question was probably too simple, cos *I am interested in what people think (mostly what non-Russians think*, as I can generally anticipate what Russians could say): Do you think that Russia's democracy or not? - that's the implication...

 Yes, Russia is a democracy. Russia has fair elections and the government listens to the people. In the US, if we don't like what the government is doing then we can protest and sign petitions. The same is true in Russia. In the US, we have left and right wing media. The same is true in Russia. In the US, people can tell the government what to do and they listen. The same is true in Russia. 
Some examples of "listening to the people":
When people in the US wanted the gays to have rights, the government gave them rights.
When people in Russia didn't want kids exposed to gay propaganda, the government passed a law to stop it. Why? Because the majority of the people didn't want that to be happening. The majority of the people is what democracy is all about. 
I believe that if I was living in Russia right now, I would feel just as free and democratic as I feel living in the US. And I wouldn't have to face-palm when the president made a speech, lol.
A lot of people in the US argue that since gays don't have rights in Russia, then Russia isn't a democracy. That's not true. A lot of people in the US want pot to be legal and it's not. Does that mean that the US isn't a democracy?
If Russia isn't a democracy because of the gay issue, then the US isn't a democracy because of the pot issue. 
People can argue all day about it but in the end, the US and Russia are both democracies. 
But I also have 2 more questions. 
1. Was the USSR a democracy? 
I read a lot of the history about that. The people of Russia wanted to break away from the Tsars and build a form of government that would listen to the people and help them. It was called communism but it was a form of government that was created by the people. So maybe that was a type of democracy too. The Russian Federation is more democratic since it has free elections but I think any government that's created by the people, is still a type of democratic process. 
Anyway, I'm really impressed with how democratic Russia is and I think we could learn a lot from President Putin. But don't forget, Russia has more than 1,000 years of experience. We only have about 200 and we're on a steep learning curve. 
2. Is democracy important?
Well, if you look at US democracy, what do you see? I see a lot of freedom, security, and a happy life. I see friendly and helpful police who never harass me and a safe neighborhood. That's all I saw till I started reading the news feeds online.
Now what I see is really changing up how I feel about everything. I see police brutality, flash mobs, lots of people being killed without a good reason, economic disasters, a president that makes all the worst decisions, and tons of wars to protect National interests.
Okay, a dude at another forum calls me "rediculously sheltered". But that still doesn't explain why all that stuff is happening and why our National interests have to kill tons of people in countries all over the whole planet. I mean, if that's what democracy is all about then maybe it's not really that special! 
So yeah, Russia is a democracy but it's tons more peaceful than American democracy. And President Putin is a democratic president but he's tons more intelligent than President Obama. Imo, we would have a better democracy if we had someone like President Putin in the White House.

----------


## eisenherz

> But I also have 2 more questions. 
> 1. Was the USSR a democracy?

 No. It was not. When the will of the people is hijacked and dominated by a few (or one party) and the application of law becomes arbitrary (no separation of powers) you do not have a functioning democracy. The happenings of the years 1925 - 1939 in particular illustrate that. Otherwise Maximilian Robespierre and his Jakobiners could equally claim to be operating in a democracy by argument of the preceeding events to get rid of the french monarch was an act of the will of the people.

----------


## Lampada

Вот, что бы для меня было главным, если судить о демократии:_ 
"Говорят, что об уровне цивилизованности общества можно судить по тому, как в нем относятся к детям и старикам. Именно сохранением этих ценностей, а не материально-техническим оснащением определяется будущее того или иного государства. Сегодня эта идиома несколько устарела и нуждается в дополнении. Потому как не только старики и дети нуждаются в особом отношении, но и еще одна многочисленная категория населения — инвалиды. ..." _ Инвалиды никому не нужны?__

----------


## Юрка

> ...and widespread contempt for democracy, that seems to exist in Russia...

 Да, у нас есть презрение к демократии. Но я бы обобщил: у нас есть презрение, нигилизм, отрицание к любому предложению, к любому инструменту, к любому способу организации чего-либо.   

> So Russia is not alone and there is no need to judge yourself harshly about it.

 Ханна, спасибо на добром слове. У меня такое ощущение, что шведы - наши люди.  ::   

> При этом должна быть политическая борьба между ними (т.е. считаем, что борьба между партиями не приравнивается борьбе сильного со слабым в природе).

 Но такая система (в основе которой лежит борьба) имеет недостатки:
- на борьбу тратятся энергия и время.
- борьба не исключает, а даже подразумевает ложь и прочие нечестные приёмы.
- борьба приводи к компромиссам и половинчатым решениям, что снижает эффективность управления.
- борьба выносит наверх карьеристов, а не созидателей.
- борьба может уничтожить общество (революция и гражданская война).

----------


## Eric C.

When talking about democracy, the two decisive factors to me are: 
- lack of absolute power within limited groups of people; the more people taking part in making important decisions, the better; it's not by a long shot democracy when there's a "tsar"/"emperor"/"president" (whatever you call it) who's making all the decisions and to whose will everyone's serving; it's not democracy either when there's a parliament whose representatives mostly belong to one party, and all they do is sign off whatever their bosses decide; so here - a real multi-partial system and a lot of people involved in long discussions before any important law comes out, and not a one limited group being able to get any decision passed that only they would benefit from; no need to mention, not a single man having any hypothetical power at all; 
- the interests of an individual being superior to the interests of "society"; overall, when someone talks about "the interests of society", I think they're being hypocritical, because there's no society other than that consisting of individuals; if you want to make society happy - make every individual happy, that's it; in my view, any application of collectivism is incompatible with democracy, because it says everyone has to be unhappy so that the "group"/"society" etc. on the whole will be happy; but that's nothing but an oxymoron. 
So, looking at Russia, I think it certainly has made big progress building up democracy compared to what it looked like 30-40 years ago, but I have to say there are still tons of work in that direction. One negative side in my opinion is, it seems the quest for democracy slowed down a bit at the beginning of the 2000s. But I guess everything's in the hands of Russians, we have yet to see them notice what way they had taken, and turn up to the right one.

----------


## alexsms

> Russia has fair elections and the government listens to the people.

 Xplode, many people doubt that the elections here are fair (the results might be real, but the way the election is organized is more than strange: usually there is just one candidate who has a real political 'value'). There is really a huge doubt both domestically and abroad.

----------


## alexsms

> - the interests of an individual being superior to the interests of "society"

 it's an interesting point. I'd like to add here that it's impossible to satisfy ALL the people. So there is always some percentage who are not satisfied. And this situation is quite natural.

----------


## alexsms

> Но такая система (в основе которой лежит борьба) имеет недостатки:
> - на борьбу траится энергия и время.
> - борьба не исключает, а даже подразумевает ложь и прочие нечестные приёмы.
> - борьба приводи к компромиссам и половинчатым решениям, что снижает эффективность управления.
> - борьба выносит на верх карьеристов, а не созидателей.
> - борьба может уничтожить общество (революция и гражданская война).

 Имеется в виду борьба интересов в политике, а не физическая борьба при революции. Которая не приводит к уничтожению или унижению кого-либо. Например, такая борьба, при которой возможно было бы не расстреливать побеждённую сторону или тех, кто её символизирует (царя, его детей).

----------


## Lady Maria

Democracy means the rule, or power, of [the majority of] people. It's neither more nor less than a dictatorship of the majority, or the "mob". 
Given 20th and 21st-century political developments, I do not hold "democracies" in high regard, and sincerely hope that Russia is not one.

----------


## alexsms

> и максимально непосредственным доступом граждан к принятию решений на уровне всего общества или государства.

 Предполагаем, что доступ к принятию решений на уровне государства является ОПОСРЕДОВАННЫМ через выбранных представителей.

----------


## alexsms

> I would hold up *SWITZERLAND* as a country that is very close to the democratic ideal. If you are interested, I can explain why. It is probably the most "democratic" country in Europe, at least, for a number of reasons.

 Thanks for the offer, Hanna. Please explain why this country if you can.

----------


## Antonio1986

> The first question is what is DEMOCRACY?

 The word democracy, is of course Greek as the concept of *democracy* (of course *women, poor people and slaves* didn't have the right to vote then  :: ), and derives from the words = *Δήμος* (demos) + *Κρατεί* (kratei). "Demos" means people and "kratei" means rule, so it is the political system that *people rule*. On this initial definition in ancient Greece all the decisions were taken with *consensus* (i.e. the 100% of all residents of Athens should agree in order for a decision to be made, at that time about 5,000 people!). Based on this definition no country has a real democracy. Because consensus is impossible to achieved all the time the *system of majority* was introduced again for the first time in Greece. *Putin* if I am correct is now the *majority* in Russia, so democracy based on the definition of *majority* works in Russian. However, based on* John Stuart Mill*, who is the father of *political liberalism*, the majority should never depress the minorities (*"tyranny of the majority"*). Based on the second definition Russia is one of the most* failed democracies* on planet (... you don't want me to mention examples). In contemporary Greece we have a different problem now "tyranny of the minority" where few leftist groups block any attempt of reformation.

----------


## Lady Maria

> The word democracy, is of course Greek as the concept of *democracy* (of course *women, poor people and slaves* didn't have the right to vote then ), and derives from the words = *Δήμος* (demos) + *Κρατεί* (kratei). "Demos" means people and "kratei" means rule, so it is the political system that *people rule*. On this initial definition in ancient Greece all the decisions were taken with *consensus* (i.e. the 100% of all residents of Athens should agree in order for a decision to be made, at that time about 5,000 people!). Based on this definition no country has a real democracy. Because consensus is impossible to achieved all the time the *system of majority* was introduced again for the first time in Greece. *Putin* if I am correct is now the *majority* in Russia, so democracy based on the definition of *majority* works in Russian. However, based on* John Stuart Mill*, who is the father of *political liberalism*, the majority should never depress the minorities (*"tyranny of the majority"*). Based on the second definition Russia is one of the most* failed democracies* on planet (... you don't want me to mention examples). In contemporary Greece we have a different problem now "tyranny of the minority" where few leftist groups block any attempt of reformation.

 Endorsed.  
Now I'd like to know which democracy isn't a failed one. They all fall short of their idealistic mission, don't they?

----------


## Antonio1986

> Endorsed.  
> Now I'd like to know which democracy isn't a failed one. They all fall short of their idealistic mission, don't they?

 In the majority of social science departments of universities of Europe the "model of *Scandinavian* countries" is taught as that which is more closed to what we call "*functional, prosperus and liberal democracy*". The universities of USA I am sure that they promote the political system USA as the most successful democracy, because of the system of "*checks and balances**" (the French philosopher *Voltaire* will certainly agree that USA has one of the most *rightful* democracies based on this criterion). My personal opinion and I think that majority of the social scientists will agree is that *education* and *active political participation* are the two factors than can ensure the proper *functionality* of a real democracy.  
* The denial of the Parliament of USA (Congress) to approve the budget is one good recent example

----------


## SergeMak

Talking about the Soviet Union one should clearly understand that its state structure wasn't invariable throughout the Soviet period. Mainly there were two long periods: the first, dating from the middle of the 20's till 1953 was a period of the Stalin's cult of personality and the second from that date up to the break-down in 1991 was a period of "partocracy" or the rule of the Communist Party beurocracy.
Another thing one should clearly understand is that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not a usual political party, it was a huge political and economic organization which had penetrated all and every living cell of the Soviet society. Every labour collective in the Soviet Union had its own party cell. Every district of a city, every city, every region of the country, every republic had their party organizations. It was almost impossible to make a career for those who were not members of the party. So every key position in the society were occupied by communists. The communists in the local organizations or in labour collective organizations were actually quite ordinary people, they didn't differ from their co-workers or neighbors. The question is: "was there inner-party democracy or not?" I think, yes, there was some inner-party democracy although there was a strict party discipline.
So, when you ask, was there democracy in the Soviet Union, I say, yes, in the last 3 or 4 decades of its history there was a sort of democracy, but it was not a representative democracy usual for the West, it was a democracy for the most active layer of population connected however to all other people.

----------


## Hanna

> Вот, что бы для меня было главным, если судить о демократии:_ 
> "Говорят, что об уровне цивилизованности общества можно судить по тому, как в нем относятся к детям и старикам. Именно сохранением этих ценностей, а не материально-техническим оснащением определяется будущее того или иного государства. Сегодня эта идиома несколько устарела и нуждается в дополнении. Потому как не только старики и дети нуждаются в особом отношении, но и еще одна многочисленная категория населения — инвалиды. ..." _ Инвалиды никому не нужны?__

 
I totally agree with Lampada. The best definition of what's a decent society, is in how it treats the weekest members of that society. 
The elderly, the sick, the disabled, the pregnant, the new mothers/single mothers, minority groups etc.  
What killed my childhood belief in socialism, was seeing on TV, in the 90s, how retarded and handicapped people were treated in some socialist countries. 
Obviously, the same thing kills anyone's faith in capitalism - since the treatment is directly related to how much money the handicapped person's family is able and willing to spend on his care.  
Democracy is an abstract, subjective and much abused concept.  
The proof is in the pudding as we say in England. It's not how you vote -- it's whether you can sleep safely at night, knowing you will have somewhere to live, heat, water, food, an education, healthcare as needed and that you can walk safely without fear of being attacked, and be safe in your home. Also that you can sleep soundly, knowing that you will not be visited in the middle of the night by some state security agent because you said the wrong thing to the wrong person - and that there is a unbiased process to follow, should you be accused of a crime.  
Another threat to democracy is media. The owners of mass media channels has the power to affect what the majority thinks. 
If all media is privately owned and controlled, it's an enemy of democracy, since it will consciously or unconsciously support the objective of its wealthy owners, with the means to distribute and promote itself and win over any grassroots publication by regular citizens. 
If all media is tightly controlled by the state, there is a risk that criticism is stifled and nobody watches the leaders on behalf of the people. 
Some kind of blend, or state subsidies to citizen driven media is needed - or as in our age; access to free and uncensored internet.  * 
On SWISS democracy, in response to Alex' question:*  
They have a system called "Direct Democracy"  Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

> Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.[2] Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

 As a result, the country is set up like people want it, and people have their say about practical matters, like "Should there be a road here?", "Who should be allowed to immigrate to our country?", "Are companies allowed to do xyz?" If enough people support it, they will have a referendum about anything. Too much lobbying about a certain position is not allowed - people are supposed to make up their minds based on facts and their personal feeling, not some ad campaign.  
The job of the government is just to mildly steer things, and implement the results of the people's votes.  
They also have a lot of LOCAL democracy, in that people can control what's going to happen in their immediate surroundings, such as what types of schools should be available and how much spending they think public transport needs.  
And isn't it interesting that this most democratic country is also the richest in Europe, despite having NO coast, no oil or significant natural resources, and also being split into 3 different language groups, yet never having quarrels about it. They also never participate in wars, instigate them, and manage to keep at peace with everyone.

----------


## Lady Maria

And they're also a tax haven.

----------


## Paul G.

Нормального обсуждения так и не получилось (что закономерно, поскольку я их видел миллион раз).
Смешали в кучу всё: демократию, какие-то "цивилизованные общества", инвалидов, society vs. hypocritical immoral individual и т.д.
Какое отношение это имеет у предмету обсуждения? Никакого.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Talking about the Soviet Union one should clearly understand that its state structure wasn't invariable throughout the Soviet period. Mainly there were two long periods: the first, dating from the middle of the 20's till 1953 was a period of the Stalin's cult of personality and the second from that date up to the break-down in 1991 was a period of "partocracy" or the rule of the Communist Party beurocracy.
> Another thing one should clearly understand is that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not a usual political party, it was a huge political and economic organization which had penetrated all and every living cell of the Soviet society. Every labour collective in the Soviet Union had its own party cell. Every district of a city, every city, every region of the country, every republic had their party organizations. It was almost impossible to make a career for those who were not members of the party. So every key position in the society were occupied by communists. The communists in the local organizations or in labour collective organizations were actually quite ordinary people, they didn't differ from their co-workers or neighbors. The question is: "was there inner-party democracy or not?" I think, yes, there was some inner-party democracy although there was a strict party discipline.
> So, when you ask, was there democracy in the Soviet Union, I say, yes, in the last 3 or 4 decades of its history there was a sort of democracy, but it was not a representative democracy usual for the West, it was a democracy for the most active layer of population connected however to all other people.

 Thanks for that information. I didn't understand Russian history as well as I thought I did. 
But I still don't get that it's very important for a country to be a democracy. Lots of countries have democracies and they still have serious issues and make wars. And like Yuri said, when 2 or more parties are always fighting to be in control then there's a lot of wasted time and energy. Also it can cause corruption when corporations are supporting those fights. But I do like the kind of democracy in Switzerland that Hanna posted about. That's really cool! 
The only important thing is for Russia (and any other country) to have a government that cares about the people and listens.

----------


## Lampada

> Нормального обсуждения так и не получилось (что закономерно, поскольку я их видел миллион раз).
> Смешали в кучу всё: демократию, какие-то "цивилизованные общества", инвалидов, society vs. hypocritical immoral individual и т.д.
> Какое отношение это имеет у предмету обсуждения? Никакого.

 Солнышко, Павлик, не оставь в темноте народ, просвети!  Я серьёзно:  хорош плеваться, расскажи, чего набрался из всех этих обсуждений такое, что здесь все упустили. Уважь народ, а? 
А пока, если что-то по твоему мнению не имеет отношения к предмету обсуждения, то ничего страшного, потому что читать интересно тем не менее.

----------


## Lady Maria

Вся информация про демократию в России вы найдете там!

----------


## 14Russian

> Вся информация про демократию в России вы найдете там!

 Так это шутка?

----------


## alexsms

> и максимально непосредственным доступом граждан к принятию решений на уровне всего общества или государства. 
> Наиболее полно этому критерию соответствует, например, Швейцария

 
Каюсь. Про Швейцарию не был осведомлён. И что где-то есть непосредственный доступ.

----------


## alexsms

> split into 3 different language groups...

 You meant 4 Hanna. Right?
And thanks for shedding light on the matter. (Wiki says direct democracy there exists in several cantons).

----------


## alexsms

> Вся информация про демократию в России вы найдете там!

 Merci, 
*Всю информацию про демократию в России вы найдете здесь.

----------


## alexsms

> Нормального обсуждения так и не получилось (что закономерно, поскольку я их видел миллион раз).
> Смешали в кучу всё: демократию, какие-то "цивилизованные общества", инвалидов, society vs. hypocritical immoral individual и т.д.
> Какое отношение это имеет у предмету обсуждения? Никакого.

 Можно принять, что возможность решения вопросов, связанных с инвалидами, бездомными животными (а, в принципе, обеспечение равнодоступной для всех системы здравоохранения) является одним из атрибутов демократического общества. Т.е. не является ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНЫМ условием его существования, но может быть его желательным следствием.

----------


## alexsms

> Так это шутка?

 Interestingly enough, it's an informative article - the title though may look strange in the beginning (a large part of it is the historical perspective). It doesn't claim that Russia is a democracy, and at first glance the data is unbiased. The links to the western viewpoints (like Freedom House) are also present.(I am particularly interested in link 16 which is in Russian only unfortunately http://www.isras.ru/files/File/ezheg...20vizovami.pdf)

----------


## maxmixiv

> ... And like Yuri said, when 2 or more parties are always fighting to be in control then there's a lot of wasted time and energy. 
> The only important thing is for Russia (and any other country) to have a government that cares about the people and listens.

 Yes, wasted, the same happens when engineers at Sony and Panasonic concurrently try to enhance the same technology. At first glance, it seems, that it does not make a sense: they could union efforts and complete the task better and faster. In reality... if the only party is not afraid anything, then it could stay in relaxed state, and without serious efforts, the things can only be getting worse. _Предоставленные сами себе события имеют тенденцию развиваться от плохого к худшему._ (Как это будет по-английски?  ::  )
Of course, if 2 parties are sure that they will last forever, then there is a similar problem. 
Regarding modern Russia. For me, nothing has changed. Yeltsin retired when he was "tired". Our governor had been sitting for 20 years before he got tired, Putin will be in power as long as he wishes, too. They all are Tsars, be them local or nation-wide. Only aliens could plan here "a government that cares about the people and listens".

----------


## iCake

После чтения этой ветки у меня просто не мог не возникнуть вопрос. О какой демократии в России здесь вообще говорят? 
Вопрос темы нужно было ставить вообще ребром: "Будет ли в России когда-либо демократия?" 
Демократия - власть народа, чего у нас вообще не наблюдается. Народ вообще никак не участвует в принятии решений. За примерами даже ходить далеко не надо. Вот например у нас в Омске со следующего года отменят государственное финансирование общественного транспорта, в результате подскочат цены за проезд, и подскочат намного, тут даже к бабке не ходи. Также, наши омские чиновники в наглую заявили, что в следующем году не будет никаких повышений зарплат бюджетникам, что вообще идет наперерез указу президента. Также они заявили, что в следующем году в Омске будет внеплановое повышение тарифов ЖКХ. 
Что-то я очень сомневаюсь, что если бы народ имел хоть какую-то силу в принятии решений, хотя бы один из вышеперечисленных планов местного правительства был бы одобрен народом. 
И это только местный пример и один из многих. А общероссийские примеры и так все русские знают. Чего стоят только последние законы о "цензуре в интернете" и ему подобные. Я также сомневаюсь, что эти законы в почёте у народа. 
Тут некоторые могут возразить: "Ну, если не нравятся законы, иди митингуй и протестуй". Так вот и здесь же незадача. У нас же есть "Закон о митингах", по которому митинговать себе дороже будет. Штрафы безумные, да и в "кутузку" заберут на встречу с местными стражами порядка, если митинг был "несанкционированный". А "санкционированные митинги" одобряются тем же правительством, причём насколько я помню, они редко их одобряют, а если и одобряют, то, во-первых, очень долго, во-вторых, разрешают смехотворное количество людей на митинге, порядка 100, а то и меньше. 
Так что все мы тут живём по прихоти власть имущих, захотят они закон провернуть, они это сделают, а народ этого изменить никак не сможет, а просто "схавает".  
Вообщем, как я уже сказал: "демократия - власть народа", поэтому в России не может быть демократии просто по определению этого слова

----------


## Юрка

> it's not by a long shot democracy when there's a "tsar"/"emperor"/"president" (whatever you call it) who's making all the decisions

 Президент США может начать войну сам, не дожидаясь поддержки парламента. Но все называют США демократией.  

> it's not democracy either when there's a parliament whose representatives mostly belong to one party

 В США по сути всего две партии, и по принципиальным вопросам они неразличимы. Особенно по вопросам внешней политики, войны и мира. Ваши две партии - это как наши Путин и Медведев: формально они сменяют друг друга, но реально власть не меняется.  

> the interests of an individual being superior to the interests of "society"

 То есть в демократическом государстве дезертиров, не желающих жертвовать собой ради суверенитета страны, не расстреливают?  ::  
Если бы это было так, то такая страна не смогла бы существовать, так как её завоевали бы соседние страны.  

> Имеется в виду борьба интересов в политике, а не физическая борьба при революции. Которая не приводит к уничтожению или унижению кого-либо. Например, такая борьба, при которой возможно было бы не расстреливать побеждённую сторону или тех, кто её символизирует (царя, его детей).

 Если мы говорим, что в основе нашей жизни лежит борьба (раз мы выбрали демократию), то нужно быть морально готовым к тому, что это будет не только джентльменское выяснение отношений, но и деревенские разборки с кольями и топорами.
Когда мы говорим, что в основе нашей экономики лежит принцип "обогащайтесь" (раз мы выбрали капитализм), то нужно быть морально готовым к тому, что эта идеология проникнет в сознание всех: не только предпринимателей, но и врачей, учителей, чиновников, полиции, военных.
Ибо слаб человек есть.  

> Демократия - власть народа...

 ... над здравым смыслом?
Если в бюджете нет денег, то что народ собрался делить?  

> Was the USSR a democracy?

 Сложный вопрос. 
1. Власть одной партии была узаконена в Конституции. 
2. Голосование было, но без альтернативы. Кандидат в депутаты был один. Смысл голосования был в том, что народ, как носитель власти и суверенитета, уполномачивал данных депутатов представлять их в парламенте. Поэтому ощущение важности события у избирателей было. День выборов ощущался как важное событие и как государственный праздник.
3. Партия была одна, но она была массовой (19 миллионов человек = 10% взрослого населения страны). Поэтому можно сказать, что она в значительной мере представляла народ. Кроме того, в партию невозможно было попасть без рекомендации трудового коллектива (а там было много беспартийных).
4. Дискуссии велись, но только в рамках партии. За её границы дискуссии не выходили. 
Таким образом, народ был представлен во власти. Но механизм этого представления был оригинальным. Я бы не назвал его классической демократией.

----------


## maxmixiv

> Штрафы безумные, да и в "кутузку" заберут на встречу с местными стражами порядка, если митинг был "несанкционированный".

 Помитинговать-то можно, но после 1993г желание митинговать сильно поубавилось, после того, как выяснилось, что могут и из танков пострелять ("колья и топоры" в квадрате). Тогда началось начало конца, как мне кажется.

----------


## iCake

> Originally Posted by iCake  Демократия - власть народа...         Originally Posted by Юрка  ... над здравым смыслом?
> Если в бюджете нет денег, то что народ собрался делить?

 Я бы вас попросил слова из контекста не выдёргивать... Смысл моего поста был совсем не в этом, более того он даже никак не намекал на то, что вы написали.

----------


## dtrq

У Достоевского в "Братьях Карамазовых" один персонаж заявляет, что хорошо было бы, если бы Наполеон в 1812 году завоевал Россию, "умная нация покорила бы весьма глупую-с и присоединила к себе. Совсем даже были бы другие порядки-с", и добавляет: "Русский народ надо пороть-с".  
Интересно, что обе точки зрения в наше время имеют весьма много последователей, а под вторым высказыванием часто подписываются как раз консервативно и патриотически настроенные граждане. Но самое интересное, что чуть дальше по тексту Иван пересказывает свою знаменитую поэму о Великом Инквизиторе. По-моему, близость этих эпизодов не случайна, и Достоевский в истории о Инквизиторе говорит не только о человечестве вообще, но в первую очередь о России и об ее отношении к свободе и демократии. 
Инквизитор ставит в вину Христу, что тот дал народу свободу вместо хлеба, а свобода - самый страшный груз. Народ боится и ненавидит свободу, потому что она означает ответственность за себя и свое будущее, он ищет того, на кого бы свалить этот груз и жить как ребенок под опекой родителя. 
Того, кто будет его пороть, когда надо. 
Это именно то, чего подсознательно хочет русский народ. Какую политическую систему не строй, все равно будет царь-батюшка. Потому что не умеем и не хотим жить по-другому, боимся и ненавидим других порядков. Не потому, что инфантильны и незрелы и неспособны принять за себя ответственность, а потому, что сами считаем себя дикарями и варварами, которых "надо пороть". Каждый русский, глубоко в душе, считает Россию варварской страной: либерал-западник открыто и с презрением, ярый патриот -- с некоторой даже гордостью и обидой одновременно. Сколько раз я слышал от самых разных людей по поводу какого-нибудь очередного безобразия: "Ну что ж поделать, в России же живем". Мой друг, Карамазовых не читавший, ранее придерживавшийся либеральных взглядов а недавно обернувшийся в консерваторы, недавно заявил практически по Достоевскому: мол, русским свободы давать нельзя, а нужно держать в ежовых рукавицах. А иначе худо будет.  
Что это -- комплекс неполноценности, трезвая оценка ситуации -- я не знаю. Знаю только, что идет это еще с самого начала Российской истории, с призвания варяг: "Земля наша велика и обильна, а порядка в ней нет: приходите княжить и владеть нами". И даже если это все фальшивка и выдумка, как многие уверяют, сути это сильно не меняет: написано это было в Средние века, значит все равно давно это убеждение укоренилось в умах.

----------


## Юрка

> Это именно то, чего подсознательно хочет русский народ. Какую политическую систему не строй, все равно будет царь-батюшка.

 Нам надо перестать считать своих предков дураками. Пусть будет царь-батюшка, как отправная точка. Далее нужна эволюция, постепенное улучшение, десятилетия эволюции. 
И пора обратить внимание на нижний уровень управления. Все почему-то смотрят на царя. Тем временем управление и существование коллективов на уровне компаний - это мрак и ужас. И никто кроме отмороженных философов не думает об этом. Я считаю, что самое эффективное предприятие - это индивидуальное предприятие. И всё благодаря тому, что там диктатура (что один решил, то и будет), а не демократия.

----------


## Lampada



----------


## Юрка

В СССР верили, что справедливость в социализме.
В США верят, что справедливость в демократии.
Один Карл Маркс знал, что справедливости не будет, если человек производит больше, чем может потребить. Лишнее всегда можно отнять и перераспределить. Справедливость есть только у примитивных племён, так как они не берут от природы лишнего. 
Но в США не читали Маркса, поэтому тычут нам своей фишкой.

----------


## UhOhXplode

> Yes, wasted, the same happens when engineers at Sony and Panasonic concurrently try to enhance the same technology. At first glance, it seems, that it does not make a sense: they could union efforts and complete the task better and faster. In reality... if the only party is not afraid anything, then it could stay in relaxed state, and without serious efforts, the things can only be getting worse. _Предоставленные сами себе события имеют тенденцию развиваться от плохого к худшему._ (Как это будет по-английски?  )
> Of course, if 2 parties are sure that they will last forever, then there is a similar problem. 
> Regarding modern Russia. For me, nothing has changed. Yeltsin retired when he was "tired". Our governor had been sitting for 20 years before he got tired, Putin will be in power as long as he wishes, too. They all are Tsars, be them local or nation-wide. Only aliens could plan here "a government that cares about the people and listens".

 I should have thought about that. Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." 
@ iCake: 
The same problem is in the US too. That's why I think that living in Russia wouldn't be different than living in the US. Yeah, there would be different issues but the way the government deals with the issues would be the same.
What would be different is the people, the space program, and snow. We almost never get any snow here.  :: 
Examples in the US: 
1. The city has been calling my parents about a vote for an increase in utility rates. The vote won't be till this weekend but our utility bill already went up by about $12. The last time they wanted an increase, they said they needed to build a new water treatment facility. They never built it. They used the money to help build a new golf course and keep it watered.
Also, the people voted against that increase so they increased the rate anyway. If the rate increase loses this time, it will still be increased.
2. There are lots of people in the US working for a lot less than minimum wage. That wage only applies to some jobs and even those employers can cheat.
3. The US and the State can both tax tobacco. Our State taxed it twice. When some citizens complained and wanted to know why they doubled the tax, the State government just said "because we can.".
4. Everybody wants the corporations to label GMO products, especially foods. Ain't gonna happen. 
The US government only listens to the people if they agree with them on issues. And dad said that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same party. The only difference is some small social issues. They both have the same agendas.
Oh, and people have to buy a permit to have a protest and they can refuse to give them a permit. That permit tells them how many people can be at the protest, where the protest can happen, and how many people can be there. If anyone breaks any of those rules then they will be arrested. And even if they don't break the rules, they can still get pepper sprayed by the police. It's dangerous to get very close to a protest cause the police can call you a protester and spray you. 
So maybe there aren't really any democracies anyway. 
@ Lampada:
Our country thinks it has both. Great wealth in the hands of a few PLUS a democracy.  
@ Юрка:
I've never read anything by Karl Marx. What books did he write?

----------


## Юрка

> @ Юрка:
> I've never read anything by Karl Marx. What books did he write?

 Он с Фридрихом Энгельсом много чего написал. Но знакомиться с его трудами нужно наверное, начиная с "Манифеста коммунистической партии" (1848 ). Мы читали его ещё в средней школе. Помню, что книжка небольшая, а текст несложный.

----------


## 14Russian

> Interestingly enough, it's an informative article

 No, it isn't.

----------


## 14Russian

> I should have thought about that. Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
> @ Юрка:
> I've never read anything by Karl Marx. What books did he write?

 LOL.

----------


## Lady Maria

> Так это шутка?

 Нет, это статья.

----------


## maxmixiv

> ...русским свободы давать нельзя, а нужно держать в ежовых рукавицах.

 Всё так, но мне кажется, что все народы в древние времена начинали с этого, но как-то постепенно свобода личности во многих странах перестала быть пустым местом. А мы - застряли вместе со Средней Азией. Кажется, везде, где можно и где нельзя, на всех уровнях обязательно будут установлены такие порядки, чтобы люди не почувствовали себя комфортно, и всегда будут какие-то мелкие подлянки.   
Первое, что бросилось в глаза, когда вернулся из Европы на днях - очень грязные машины. Второе, что бросилось - напряжённые лица.

----------


## Eric C.

> В СССР верили, что справедливость в социализме.
> В США верят, что справедливость в демократии.
> Один Карл Маркс знал, что справедливости не будет, если человек производит больше, чем может потребить. Лишнее всегда можно отнять и перераспределить. Справедливость есть только у примитивных племён, так как они не берут от природы лишнего. 
> Но в США не читали Маркса, поэтому тычут нам своей фишкой.

 1. Справедливости будет еще меньше если человек производит меньше чем потребляет: к природной алчности (с которой в любом случае ничего не сделаешь) добавляется еще и бедность.
2. Ваш тезис о производстве и потреблении (или не ваш, но который как я понял вы поддерживаете) идет вразрез с негативным отношением к потребительской модели, присущим большинству русских с левыми взглядами, к которым я небезосновательно причислял вас, в чем подвох? =))

----------


## alexsms

> No, it isn't.

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

----------


## Hanna

> 

 They succeeded with this anyway though. At least with the illusion of democracy. 
By propaganda; convincing the majority that there really is democracy
keeping two parties to choose from that are almost identical when viewed from a distance

----------


## Lady Maria

Oh yes, what a sham. Every five years we get to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Or more appropriately perhaps, between plague and cholera. 
And to think that 70% of French decisions are actually Brussels-made... I'm so thrilled to exercise my voting right!  
Talk about democracy. Everywhere you turn it's just a self-perpetuating farce wherein an elite gets voted in at regular intervals, thanks to state-controlled media. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that in the USA you cannot even hope to be in the running unless you're loaded or sponsored. Election costs are just prohibitive. (If I could be proved wrong, I'd welcome the news.) As for Russia, everyone knows Putin comes from the KGB. Need I say more? You can sense an iron fist from here (whether for good or ill, that's not for me to tell). 
Also, Russia seems very united. It wouldn't be that way in France, which tends to create conflicts of interest and general ill-feeling. Racial minorities (but this is very politically incorrect, will I get censored?) far outweigh the supposed white catholic majority, the public sector has been at variance with the private sector for decades, unions and employers are at daggers drawn and after epic street protests, homosexuals have recently been allowed to marry... in short, when the people are so divided, can they still rule? I don't think so. I think they're under a yoke, now more than ever.  
Divide and conquer!

----------


## Hanna

> Нам надо перестать считать своих предков дураками. Пусть будет царь-батюшка, как отправная точка. Далее нужна эволюция, постепенное улучшение, десятилетия эволюции. 
> И пора обратить внимание на нижний уровень управления. Все почему-то смотрят на царя. Тем временем управление и существование коллективов на уровне компаний - это мрак и ужас. И никто кроме отмороженных философов не думает об этом. Я считаю, что самое эффективное предприятие - это индивидуальное предприятие. И всё благодаря тому, что там диктатура (что один решил, то и будет), а не демократия.

 
I still think everything he said was technically correct. There is no denying that he was right in his observations. 
The problem is implementing it, and keeping it working. But that's another thread.... 
As for the USSR - there was a level of democracy, as far as I recall, from learning about the governing of the major powers of the time, in school. 
Plus - there were ways and means for people to promote ideas and change some things, wasn't there?  
My point is that in terms of an working class individual's opportunity to influence his everyday life, he's not necessarily better off in a so-called democracy. 
And if you are some kind of elite in any society, you can use your money and connection to change things.  
If you compare the situation of a waitress or factory worker in the USSR versus the USA at the time, I don't necessarily think the USSR worker had less opportunities to influence things. Of course, I really wouldn't know since I have no experience of either. But I don't perceive there as having been no people power at all in the USSR.  
In many European countries in earlier days - workers had a lot of influence on society through the unions. But nowadays you rarely hear of the unions. 
When I went to university there was even mandatory membership in the student union, and I got involved in some political initiatives of interest to students. We took a stand on various issues and as large union backed groups we were able to get our messages heard.

----------


## Hanna

> Deleted.L.

 If you have any personal experience or insight, then by all means explain it here, including what you base your information on. 
Else I can only conclude that you are continuing your mission to troll every comment I make without having anything substantial to add.   Hint - if you have nothing new or constructive to add to the discussion, and you are not prepared to share any personal experiences to support your statements, then your comments are of no interest to anyone. Particularly not if your main objective is to insult or provoke another forum member.

----------


## Lady Maria

Democracy or no democracy, many who lived in the late days of the USSR view it with nostalgia. If you were a writer, a political activist, an artist, open disagreement was a no-no, but for Joe Public (or the Russian equivalent... say, Иван Иванович Иванов) what difference could it make? They toed the line, got on with their lives and picking mushrooms in the forest... one would suspect interactions with the government were few and far between - and the fewer and further between, the better.  
At least, there was no pretence, no façade. Nowadays the pressure from above is much more insidious. Democracy is just a warped term they shove down our throats so that we may bow and accept the political situation, as it is supposedly _of our own making_. 
Now I'm left wondering if Hanna visited Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea.

----------


## Hanna

> And to think that 70% of French decisions are actually Brussels-made...

  Really, is that how people view it? Do you have any examples...?  
There are some really sinister conspiracy theories about the EU, the Euro, and plans for a USA-like federation in Europe, pushed through on the notion that "we must save the Euro, and only Brussels can control the Euro." So basically, not giving people a choice about it.  EU is beginning to feel increasingly sinister. I used to love the idealism about it, but right now it feels like it's all about the money. I'm concerned about the issues about the lack of democracy on the decisions. 
Just look at Greece, they are essentially not running their own country any more. Brussels and the IMF is. Same thing happened in Latvia a few years ago, but it's smaller so nobody noticed. And who's next....

----------


## Eric C.

I respect and am enthusiastic about Greece as a great tourist destination, but the way they run their economy can just blow anyone's mind! They took a 140 billion euro loan and just spent it for their internal purposes having made not a single penny! Not only did they have no intent to ever repay it, they started to request for more loans to keep their economy afloat! That is truly mind-blowing, and in that situation, Brussels making some decisions for them doesn't even seem particularly bad.

----------


## Lady Maria

French people with a semblance of education would know that European laws are binding, from the CAP through budgetary strictures, civil protection, energy, tourism, police cooperation to national defence. We're sometimes reminded of it, with such innocuous phrases as "further to the European directive so-and-so...". Hell, we're even supposed to elect our national representatives in the European parliament! But let me tell you the absentions run high... None but Brussels-buffs and those with a keen interest in politics really knows who's on the lists. To most of us they're just names. 
When the French people voted NO to a European referendum, the government sat on it. Just plain sat on it. We have had zilch say in European politics (how could it be otherwise?!) the Euro was imposed upon us and has meant nothing but a loss in domestic purchasing power (although if you were to go on holidays to say, Turkey, your purchasing power parity would naturally get a boost). 
Another sad issue would be that our debt belongs mostly to China. Needless to say, when you are indebted to someone, you are obliged to them... making this democratic myth even lamer.

----------


## Hanna

> the way they run their economy can just blow anyone's mind

 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.

----------


## Eric C.

> the Euro was imposed upon us and has meant nothing but a loss in domestic purchasing power

 I've heard a number of similar stories, I just don't get them, do you mean that after Euro was introduced as your local currency the prices began to rise, or do you mean your salaries went out of sync with the official rate of your former currency to Euro?

----------


## Hanna

> French people with a semblance of education would know that European laws are binding, from the CAP through budgetary strictures, civil protection, energy, tourism, police cooperation to national defence. We're sometimes reminded of it, with such innocuous phrases as "further to the European directive so-and-so...". Hell, we're even supposed to elect our national representatives in the European parliament! But let me tell you the absentions run high... None but Brussels-buffs and those with a keen interest in politics really knows who's on the lists. To most of us they're just names. 
> When the French people voted NO to a European referendum, the government sat on it. Just plain sat on it. We have had zilch say in European politics (how could it be otherwise?!) the Euro was imposed upon us and has meant nothing but a loss in domestic purchasing power (although if you were to go on holidays to say, Turkey, your purchasing power parity would naturally get a boost). 
> Another sad issue would be that our debt belongs mostly to China. Needless to say, when you are indebted to someone, you are obliged to them... making this democratic myth even lamer.

 Never came across a French person with these types of views. Sorry to say that all French people I know, are corporate drones, anglophiles or just wealthy and clueless. So it's very interesting to read your posts! Hope you'll stick around in the forum, it would really benefit from your input, I think!  
And for the record I share many of your views, even if I don't have the French perspective.  
What happened to the CAP, by the way? The big hot issue when Eastern Europe was joining, was that they would not be allowed to get CAP assistance - blatant discrimination, really. I would have been too proud to be a 2nd class EU country, if I was them! 
I think they all agreed to membership sans CAP anyway, didn't they? Or are we now supporting 1 pig farmers in places like Poland and Romania? Not that they are any less worthy than some of the millionaire farmers that are milking CAP in Germany and lots of other places.

----------


## Lampada

> Это полная чушь.

  

> Так это шутка?

  

> No, it isn't.

   

> LOL.

 I have to bring to your attention that posting this way you break the forum rule #6.  Please take it into account and please follow the rules. *
"6 - Do not turn this forum into a chatroom. Try to make posts that have some essence to them."  *

----------


## wanja



----------


## Marcus

> Как в принципе изначально в Римской Республике и было. Диктатор избирался демократически (но уже и тут, блин, проблема; демократически - но среди определенного слоя населения только) для решения какой-нибудь задачи.

 Диктатора в Риме назначали в случае особой опасности для государства на срок не более полугода.

----------


## Eric C.

> Диктатора в Риме назначали в случае особой опасности для государства на срок не более полугода.

 Ironically, dictators these days try to make their rule last forever...

----------


## Hanna

The question about democracy is neither here nor there, really. 
In  which Western country can you achieve real change through the ballot? None... 
In Europe soon all political parties are equally New Labour-esque politcally correct clones of each other. 
Turning democracy into a joke because no party is for any significant change. Those who are, are accused of being religious fanatics, clueless hippies, nazis,"stalinist" and similar by mainstream media to the point that nobody will vote for them. 
In America it's already happened a long time ago and everyone is busy squabbling about the details of the near identical programmes of the republicans or democrates, while the corporations and elites are grabbing the wealth and the population is getting poorer and more unhealthy year by year. 
I think that a much more interesting question is: 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? I don't really understand what the policies of Edinaya Rossiya are, what their ideology is, if they have one, and what their vision for Russia is.  
What are the big differences in the politics of Edinaya Rossiya and the second largest party?

----------


## E-learner

> 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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## 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, your distrust for whom being only a shade less strong because he happens not to be currently in power?

----------


## 14Russian

> 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.) ::

----------


## 14Russian

> 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.   

> 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.

----------


## Lampada

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

 За следующий переход на личности -  7 дней бан.

----------


## 14Russian

> За следующий переход на личности -  7 дней бан.

 Извини, что я нагрубил.

----------


## Lakme

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/

----------


## alexsms

> 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.

----------


## Marcus

> 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.

----------


## Юрка

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.   

> 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.

----------


## DanielM

> 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.

----------


## Lampada

> 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!

----------


## Lakme

> 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.

----------


## alexsms

> 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## Hanna

> 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.

----------


## Eric C.

At least, this "evil western style democracy" won't let _this_ happen:  Some creepy stuff

----------


## maxmixiv

> 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.

----------


## SergeMak

> With all that in mind, serfdom was abolished in 1861 only (cf, underground rail opened in London in 1863)

 Yes, and slavery in the USA was abolished in 1865, and not without the influence of the abolishment of serfdom in Russia.
By the way, although de facto serfdom in Britain became obsolete much earlier, du jure the feudal copyhold tenure system was abolished only in 1922. 
On the other hand, serfdom never was total in Russia. By the year 1861 only about 30% of peasants were serfs. And there were regions where serfdom never existed, that is Russian North, Siberia, Cossacks' lands.

----------


## RedFox

К вопросу о наличии демократии в России.  Сообщает известный оппозиционный политик Алексей Навальный:  

> Вчера прошёл очередной учредительный съезд партии "Народный Альянс".
> Понятно, что слова "очередной" и "учредительный" выглядят странно вместе, но именно так.
> У "Народного Альянса" есть сторонники, идеология и программа, но бумажки из МинЮста у него нет пока.
> Это, кстати, и есть причина: если есть сторонники, идеология и программа, то бумажки не даём. А то вы ж так и в выборах успешно участвовать начнёте!

  

> На первом митинге после выборов мэра я сказал, что главный их результат – возникновение новой настоящей оппозиции. 
> Оппозиции, претендующей на представление интересов большинства, а не желающей находиться в электоральном гетто в 5%.
> Я уверен, что ни одна партия, кроме НА не может играть эту роль. Мы вместе совсем недавно успешно уничтожили миф о том, что оппозиция - это набор узких идеологических групп. Вот в этом углу стоят либералы, вон в том - левые, вот здесь националисты.
> Я утверждаю, что политические потребности большинства людей описываются иначе: в условиях, когда на их глазах Россию превращают в феодальное государство, смысл которого в бесконечном коррупционном обогащении нескольких семей и расставлении представителей этих семей на должности в специально для этого создаваемые госкомпании, люди хотят партию, которая своими целями ставит:
> -борьбу с коррупцией,
> -отставивание европейского пути развития,
> -справедливое распределение ресурсной ренты вообще, и нефтегазовых доходов - в частности,
> -справедливое распределение власти, которая должна находится в городах и регионах, а не в одном московском кабинете.

  

> Убеждён, что важным отличием НА от других партийных структур должна стать *прямая электронная демократия*. Важные решения (кадровые в том числе) принимаются *прямым голосованием всех членов партии*. Лидеры региональных отделений избираются и переизбираются прямым голосованием всех членов отделения, а не конференциями.

  

> На съезде все спрашивали: что сделаешь на следующий день, после того, как станешь лидером партии? 
> На следующий день я пошёл в уголовно-исполнительную инспекцию по месту жительства, где вежливая девушка-инспектор поставила меня на учёт как преступника, находящегося под надзором, сняла отпечатки пальцев и заполнила кучу анкет с вопросами, типа, "бравируете ли вы преступным прошлым". 
> В одном месте было затруднение, в разделе анкеты "Цели в жизни" был пункт "Планирует отомстить судьям, следователям и сотрудникам МВД", пункт отличный и я, безусловно, это планирую, но для цели в жизни это мелковато.
> Нужного пункта "Планирует добиваться превращения России в справедливое для всех правовое государство европейского типа" почему-то не было.
> Посоветовавшись с девушкой-инспектором, выбрал пункт «честно трудиться».

 И комментарий по этому поводу от одного из националистических публицистов —  Егора Просвирнина:  

> Сегодня Алексей Навальный был избран председателем партии "Народный Альянс". И сегодня же стало известно, что по опросам "Левады" 54% граждан РФ о Навальном слышали, причем 43% относятся нейтрально, а 6% "уважают" Навального. 6% вроде бы немного, но проходной барьер на выборах в Госдуму - 5%. 
> То есть, если бы мы жили в Европейской Русской России, то сегодня у нас выбрали председателя будущей парламентской партии, попавшей в высшую политическую лигу еще до своего основания и являющейся естественным локомотивом обновления политических элит с помощью выходцев из первого постсоветского поколения. Слушали-постановили-организовали, давайте теперь бороться за выборные места, чтобы продвинуть отражающих наши интересы кандидатов в российскую политическую элиту. 
> Но так как мы живем в Азиатской Многонациональной Россиянии, то на самом деле у нас сегодня незарегистрированная политическая группа выбрала своим председателем осужденного уголовника с условным сроком, не имеющего права баллотироваться ни в какие органы власти и находящегося под гнетом новых уголовных дел, блатного круче Михаила Круга. 
> Просто к вопросу о том, как было бы в Русской России, как есть в Многонациональной Россиянии, и кто в происходящем виноват - "неправильный" русский народ, не умеющий в демократию, или какие-то более конкретные лица, имеющие имена, фамилии и официальные должности. И что когда здесь пойдет цепь переворотов, хаос и гражданская война, будут ли в этом виноваты выросшие при крепостном праве русские ("Не хочу собираться и голосовать, хочу бунт!"), или какие-то опять же более конкретные лица, модерирующие политические процессы по принципу "Весь молодняк передушу, сволочи какие, избираться хотят!"

 А вот это вчера происходило на Красной Площади:

----------


## Юрка

> А вот это вчера происходило на Красной Площади:

 Два человека. На их фоне слово "всех" выглядит не убедительно, а смешно.

----------


## RedFox

> Два человека. На их фоне слово "всех" выглядит не убедительно, а смешно.

----------


## Lampada

> Два человека. На их фоне слово "всех" выглядит не убедительно, а смешно.

 Что-то полицейские не очень смеются.

----------


## Юрка

> 

 Это другое мероприятие. И в другом месте. И под другим лозунгом. Там люди пришли поддержать кандидата в чиновники Навального. Поэтому эта фотография не имеет отношения к моему комментарию. С точки зрения аргументации это подмена (то есть демагогия и явное неуважение собеседника).   

> Что-то полицейские не очень смеются.

 Они на работе. Им нельзя выражать свою личную точку зрения во время службы. Во время службы им можно лишь выполнять служебные обязанности.

----------


## RedFox

> Это другое мероприятие. И в другом месте. И под другим лозунгом. Там люди пришли поддержать кандидата в чиновники Навального.

 Кэп на связи.

----------


## Юрка

> Кэп на связи.

 Эту фразу надо понимать как стёб надо мной лично? Пытаетесь вызвать конфликт? Троллинг?

----------


## RedFox

> Эту фразу надо понимать как стёб надо мной лично? Пытаетесь вызвать конфликт? Троллинг?

 take it easy, man

----------


## Hanna

I still don't see why democracy is so much worse in Russia than in Western countries.  
Look at here in the UK.  
We cannot start a demonstration if we want, need permission, and they will only grant it at bad times, in bad places. 
1 May manifestations are banned, full stop. 
Security services spy on people and can take anybody in for questioning  for 2 weeks without even revealing what the charges are - for suspected  terrorism. 
Look how they are treating Assange. 
The poor get poorer, rich get richer and immigrants are pouring in,  while jobs are outsourced to cheaper countries. Nobody wants any of  this.  Yet it's happening. 
UK participating in occupations and wars that nobody supports. 
All European nations have some variation of this, but it's extreme here.  
And the USA has the same problems.  
So based on this; I don't think I need to worry about democracy in  Russia - we have our own problems with democracy. If the Russians aren't  happy about the level of democracy, then they should do something about  it. 
It seems to me it's not really a priority for most Russians anyway.

----------


## Hanna

Those protesters in Moscow on RedFox pictures are extremely well dressed. What's going on, the revolution of the upper middle class?

----------


## RedFox

Извиняюсь, что по-русски, — моего словарного запаса маловато для обсуждения политики на английском.   

> I still don't see why democracy is so much worse in Russia than in Western countries.  
> Look at here in the UK.  
> We cannot start a demonstration if we want, need permission, and they will only grant it at bad times, in bad places. 
> 1 May manifestations are banned, full stop. 
> Security services spy on people and can take anybody in for questioning  for 2 weeks without even revealing what the charges are - for suspected  terrorism. 
> Look how they are treating Assange. 
> The poor get poorer, rich get richer and immigrants are pouring in,  while jobs are outsourced to cheaper countries. Nobody wants any of  this.  Yet it's happening. 
> UK participating in occupations and wars that nobody supports.

 Согласен, нарушения прав граждан и проблемы с миграционной политикой есть практически по всех странах Европы. В России тоже есть проблемы, схожие с перечисленными. Однако у нас ситуация выходит далеко за пределы того, что можно было бы вообще называть словом "демократия". Ситуация такова: 
* Более 50% мест в Госдуме принадлежит партии Единая Россия. Этот результат есть следствие фальсификации подсчёта голосов на выборах. 50% позволяют Путину принимать практически любые законы. Можно сказать, что никакой отдельной законодательной власти у нас не существует, Дума полностью контроллируется из Кремля. 
* Есть несколько "оппозиционных" партий (которым принадлежит вторая половина думских мест). Однако эти партии также практически полностью контроллируеются из Кремля. Они не ведут никакой политической борьбы. 
* Есть множество инициативных групп, которые хотели бы сформировать новые партии. Эти партии обычно не регистрируются МинЮстом по надуманным поводам. Таким образом, человек, идущий на выборы, может выбирать только между несколькими полностью фейковыми партиями, а не между партиями, которые действительно вели бы политическую борьбу. 
* То же самое происходит и на уровне местного самоуправления. Большинство местных законодательных собраний контроллируется Единой Росиией, и на выборах мэра также обычно "побежают" представители Единой России. 
* Если вам удастся пробиться через все идиотские ограничения и зарегистрироваться, например, кандидатом в мэры, то это совсем не значит, что вам удастся провести предвыборную кампанию. Потому что: 
* Вашей деятельностью сразу заинтересуются правоохранительные органы и заведут на вас пару уголовных дел. Вас будут таскать на допросы, к вам будут приходить с обысками, будут мешать работе вашего предвыборного штаба и т.п. 
* Если вам не повезёт, вас засудят и посадят в тюрьму. Если "повезёт", то всего лишь будут мешать вашим делам, постоянно таская по судам. 
* Вам не дадут никаких шансов выступить в СМИ наравне с кандидатами от Кремля. А "правильных" кандидатов будут показывать по телевизору постоянно. 
* Когда вы обратитесь в фирмы, предоставляющие рекламные услуги, чтобы разместить рекламу на уличных билбордах, то узнаете, что в каждую из этих компаний уже позвонили из администрации города и "убедительно попросили не связываться с вами, а то будут проблемы". 
* Во время проведения выборов вам нужно держать наблюдателей на каждом участке, чтобы постараться не допустить фальсификации. И вашим наблюдателям будут мешать работать самыми разнообразными способами. 
* На каждом избирательном участке есть выездные группы для проведения голосования на дому — для людей с ограниченными способностями, стариков и т.п. В этих группах может твориться любой беспредел в плане фальсификаций. 
* Во время подсчёта голосов на избирательных участках вам тоже понадобятся ваши наблюдатели, иначе там впишут в протоколы любые числа, какие захотят. 
* Наконец, если вы всё же прорвались через эту полосу препятствий, то ничто не помешает центральной избирательной комиссии "слегка подкорректировать" итоги выборов. Ну, там, 5-10 процентов туда или сюда, ерунда какая.  ::  
И вот так у нас проходят КАЖДЫЕ выборы. 
Насколько я знаю, сейчас в стране есть только один не кремлёвский мэр — Ройзман в Екатеринбурге. 
Далее. Если бы в стране не работал как нужно только механизм голосований, это было бы еще не слишком плохо. Против фальсификаций можно было бы подать судебные иски и т.п. Проблема в том, что в стране также не работают: полиция, прокуратура, суды.
В частности, что касается судов. Суды принимают те решения, которые нужны власти. Всегда и во всём. 
Между прочим, статья 305 уголовного кодекса:  

> 1. Вынесение судьей (судьями) заведомо неправосудных приговора, решения или иного судебного акта - 
> наказывается штрафом в размере до трехсот тысяч рублей или в размере заработной платы или иного дохода осужденного за период до двух лет, либо принудительными работами на срок до четырех лет, либо лишением свободы на срок до четырех лет. 
> 2. То же деяние, связанное с вынесением незаконного приговора суда к лишению свободы или повлекшее иные тяжкие последствия, - 
> наказывается лишением свободы на срок от трех до десяти лет.

 "До десяти лет". И продажные судьи будут защищать эту власть от народа до последней возможности. Они знают, что каждый из них виновен, и в нормальном государстве каждый из них сел бы по вот такой статье. А когда у тебя при помощи взяток уже накуплено  несколько коттеджей, то совсем ведь не хочется присесть "до десяти лет". 
Вся эта система есть следствие советского строя: людей, которые выросли без всякой идеи о демократии. Сейчас в стране идёт борьба пост-советского поколения против такой системы. Именно поэтому я говорю, что СССР у нас в стране совсем не кончился в 91-м, а всё еще продолжается. 
В 90-е демократические ценности имели какое-то значение для всех этих советских людей. Они хотя бы притворялись, что принимают демократические правила игры. Почти нормально работали суды, почти нормально проводились выборы. Была реальная свобода слова. Да, было много беспредела, бандитизма и "новых русских" в красных пиджаках. Но был какой-то прогресс. Но потом к власти пришла путинская команда КГБшников и всё скатилось обратно в СССР.   

> So based on this; I don't think I need to worry about democracy in  Russia - we have our own problems with democracy. If the Russians aren't  happy about the level of democracy, then they should do something about  it. 
> It seems to me it's not really a priority for most Russians anyway.

  Я думаю, у вас нет причин беспокоиться о проблемах демократии в России в любом случае. Никто ж не считает, что вы морально обязаны сидеть и переживать о проблемах людей другой страны.
Что касается борьбы за свои права, не думайте, что в России никто не борется против существующей системы. Множество людей вовлечено в "doing something about it", и это не одномоментный процесс типа "вышли все на улицу, Путин испугался и убежал, и стало всем счастье". Это процесс, требующий работы на протяжении многих лет.  
По этому поводу хочу процитировать слова Навального, которые он сказал перед тем, как ему вынесли приговор:   

> Все эти годы я вместе с вами и учился организовываться в условиях госпропаганды, запугивания и отсутствия денег. 
> Чему-то научился.
> Мы умеем теперь и собирать деньги. Уверен, что вы поможете собрать их нашему Фонду, в случае негативного развития событий.
> По моей оценке годовой потенциал сбора денег с граждан на политические проекты - не меньше 300 млн рублей.
> Надо их просто собирать, а сейчас это делает только наш Фонд и ещё пара организаций. Мы выбираем только малую часть. 
> Умеем вести расследования лучше, чем любые структуры, которым положено вести расследования. 
> Умеем находить недвижимость и активы жуликов, их виды на жительство. 
> Умеем делать, децентрализованно финансировать и выпускать газеты. Первый выпуск уже больше, чем миллионным тиражом разошёлся, значит можем и 5-10 миллионов каждые три месяца делать, если постараемся. 
> Умеем митинги большие проводить. 
> ...

 If you are listening to this message, you are the Resistance. (c) John Connor

----------


## Юрка

> Those protesters in Moscow on RedFox pictures are extremely well dressed. What's going on, the revolution of the upper middle class?

 Иногда они раздеты. Вот ещё один "герой" (видео не для всех, 18+).  
Это апофеоз бессмысленности нашей "оппозиции". Эти люди пытаются стать нашими лидерами. К сожаленю, другой оппозиции у нас нет. Есть бессмысленные интеллигенты с большим набором бессмысленных слов и жестов.

----------


## maxmixiv

На самом деле, всё гораздо хуже. Большинство моих знакомых голосовали за Путина, так как вообще не могут себе представить, что может быть кто-то другой. Это царизм, товарищи. Не могу согласиться, что  

> Вся эта система есть следствие советского строя

 По мне, так это вся тысячелетняя история. Азиаты мы. Ими и останемся.

----------


## RedFox

> По мне, так это вся тысячелетняя история. Азиаты мы. Ими и останемся.

 Вы может и азиаты, а русские — европейцы. Учить историю — полезно. А верить пропаганде — не очень полезно.

----------


## RedFox

> Это царизм, товарищи.

 Царизм — это buzzword из Советского Союза. There is nothing in the reality that can be named as царизм, as the word makes no sense.

----------


## Юрка

> На самом деле, всё гораздо хуже. Большинство моих знакомых голосовали за Путина, так как вообще не могут себе представить, что может быть кто-то другой.

 Многие грустно вздыхают и разводят руками (мол, незакого голосовать кроме Путина), но надо учитывать один психологический момент: у нас многие реально за него, но не все хотят 
- публично спорить с бешенными оппозиционерами;
- брать на себя ответственность за проколы власти;
- отказываться от тайны голосования, которую гарантирует Конституция. 
Так что грусть - это часто игра, нежелание тратить свою энергию на споры или нежелание портить отношения. Нормальная, между прочим, тактика, выработанная веками.  

> Вы может и азиаты, а русские — европейцы.

 Так обычно говорит только часть русских. А именно западники. Те, кто хочет жить как на Западе. Те, кто считает, что мы должны подражать Западу, что Запад опережает нас. Те, кто комплексует по поводу своей страны. Для таких западников в наших летописях даже есть нарицательное имя: Гостомыслы (мыслящие о гостях). В смутное время они кричали "хотим жить под королём шведским (или польским)". 
Лично я не хочу приклеиваться ни к Европе ни к Азии. Не хочу сливаться с ними или растворяться в них. У России есть самодостаточность. Россия - это материк. 
Блок хорошо сказал:  

> Мильоны — вас. Нас — тьмы, и тьмы, и тьмы. 
> Попробуйте, сразитесь с нами! 
> Да, Скифы — мы! Да, азиаты — мы, — 
> С раскосыми и жадными очами! 
> Для вас — века, для нас — единый час. 
> Мы, как послушные холопы, 
> Держали щит меж двух враждебных рас — 
> Монголов и Европы!

  

> Учить историю — полезно.

 А ещё полезнее знать историю. Хотя бы отдельные эпизоды.

----------


## RedFox

Trying to translate one of my previous posts.   

> I still don't see why democracy is so much worse in Russia than in Western countries.  
> Look at here in the UK.  
> We cannot start a demonstration if we want, need permission, and they will only grant it at bad times, in bad places. 
> 1 May manifestations are banned, full stop. 
> Security services spy on people and can take anybody in for questioning  for 2 weeks without even revealing what the charges are - for suspected  terrorism. 
> Look how they are treating Assange. 
> The poor get poorer, rich get richer and immigrants are pouring in,  while jobs are outsourced to cheaper countries. Nobody wants any of  this.  Yet it's happening. 
> UK participating in occupations and wars that nobody supports.

 You are right, all European states encounter the same problems, more or less. And Russia encounters them too. But also here is something that goes far beyond the democracy, in any sense of this word. I'll try to explain it in details: 
* Above 50% of the seats in the Parliament belongs to United Russia. That state of affairs is a result of massive fraud of the parliamentary elections. United Russia obeys all Putin wishes, so we can state the institutions of legislature are mostly nonexistent in nowadays Russia. Putin just can create any federal law he want. 
* There are some "opposition" political parties, that has the other part of parliamentary seets. Although these parties are mostly controlled from the Kremlin too, and there is no real political struggles among them. 
* There are a plenty of initiative groups that has the intention to be elected to Parliament, but the Department of Justice refuses to register them as political parties for ridiculous reasons. So when you are going to vote, you can see all the same faked parties in the list. Every time, every election. 
* All the same happens for local parliaments and governments too. The most of the local parliaments are totally controlled by United Russia. And "proper" candidates always win any Major elections. 
* Let's suppose you have passed all the idiotic restrictions and registered as a candidate for Major election. Now you have to face the following problems: 
* Law enforcement authorities suddenly take an interest to your business and open some criminal cases against you. You'll be questioned many times, your home and headquarters will be searched and so on. 
* If you are unlucky, you'll be convicted and imprisoned. If you are "lucky enough", they just ruin your business, but not your life. 
* You have no chance to have access to the media. But "proper" candidates will be shown there all the time. 
* When you contact some advertising agencies to place your promotional materials on street billboards, they tell you they've got a call from the city administration and strongly adviced do not mess with you "to avoid some problems". 
* During voting procedure you have to have your volunteers (I'm not sure how they can be named in English; "person who watches for everything to go without violations") on every polling station to prevent cheating. Of course, there will be people trying to sabotage your volunteers from doing the job. So make sure your volunteers are persons of strong nature and they know their rights well, else they can get in trouble. 
* There are mobile groups on each polling station, that enables ability to vote for disabled people etc. These groups are source of massive fraud, as it is very hard to keep watch over them. 
* During counting of votes your volunteers also have to be on the alert. If they haven't, the officers just draw in the reports any numbers they'd like. 
* And finally, if you've got through all these troubles, The Central Election Commission still can "correct a little bit" your results. 10% less or more... who cares? 
We have EVERY elections going in that way. 
As far as I know, Yekaterinburg is the only city for now, where the Major is not a Kremlin's person. 
But that all is only a half of the problem. The other one is total corruption of any law enforcement authorities and courts. You just cannot file a lawsuit for election fraud and expect it to be processed in fair way. Judges always make their verdicts in favor of the state. 
By the way, Article 305 of the Criminal Code states up to ten years in prison for unjust verdict and that is why corruptible judges will protect the government against people to the last. The goverment protects judges, judges protect the goverment —  that's a criminal symbiosis. 
All that system is a result of Soviet regime: several generations of people grown up without any idea of what democracy is. For now, there goes a struggle between new post-Soviet generation and the system. USSR is not eneded up at 1991, it is still here: it is in people minds. 
During 90, democracy had some value for those Soviet people whom authorities and federal agencies consisted of. At least, they were pretending to "follow the rules of the game". I mean the rules of the democracy. Courts worked properly... well, almost properly. And so the goverment did. There was real freedom of speech too. Of course, there were alot of chaos, gangsterism and those "new Russians" in red suits. But there was some progress going too. But than KGB bandits took the power, and the society went back into USSR.   

> So based on this; I don't think I need to worry about democracy in Russia - we have our own problems with democracy. If the Russians aren't happy about the level of democracy, then they should do something about it.
> It seems to me it's not really a priority for most Russians anyway.

 I think you have no need to worry about democracy in Russia in any case. One has no moral obligations for worring about foreign countries.
But if you wonder what people do in Russia for democracy, I can tell you, they do a lot.  ::  There are definately a lot of people here who "doing something about it". But fighting against the system is not something that can be done in few moments. It is not like "we all go to the Kremlin, Putin run away frightened, and all people become happy". That job can take years. 
Here is what Navalny said on that a few months ago, a day before he was unjustly judged: link (translated to English)

----------


## RedFox

> Лично я не хочу приклеиваться ни к Европе ни к Азии. Не хочу сливаться с ними или растворяться в них. У России есть самодостаточность. Россия - это материк. 
> Блок хорошо сказал:

 It is not about your personal choise, it is about natural laws. Earth revolves around the Sun. Two plus two equals four. Cuprum conducts electricity. 
I'm really tired of those weird fairy tales about "Russian uniqueness" and "there is the third way". There isn't the third way. There isn't even the second one. There is the only one way, and all the roads go to the future. The only choise one has is choise to go forth or back. If you do not go forth, it just means you go back to the African savanna. 
The more a person tells you about their uniqueness, the less unique they is in fact. A self-respecting person never needs such kind of magic spells. 
And of course, I can find some quotes too. What about Vysotsky? 
Новые левые - мальчики бравые
С красными флагами буйной оравою,
Чем вас так манят серпы да молоты?
Может, подкурены вы и подколоты?! 
Слушаю полубезумных ораторов :
"Экспроприация экспроприаторов..."
Вижу портреты над клубами пара -
Мао, Дзержинский и Че Гевара. 
Не разобраться, где левые, правые...
Знаю, что власть - это дело кровавое.
Что же, валяйте, затычками в дырках,
Вам бы полгодика, - только в Бутырках! 
Не суетитесь, мадам переводчица,
Я не спою, мне сегодня не хочется!
И не надеюсь, что я переспорю их,
Могу подарить лишь учебник истории.    

> Так обычно говорит только часть русских. А именно западники. Те, кто хочет жить как на Западе. Те, кто считает, что мы должны подражать Западу, что Запад опережает нас. Те, кто комплексует по поводу своей страны. Для таких западников в наших летописях даже есть нарицательное имя: Гостомыслы (мыслящие о гостях). В смутное время они кричали "хотим жить под королём шведским (или польским)".

 Oh, yeah, being proud of ourselves history does mean imitating the Western, being frustrated and desiring to leave the country. Your reasoning made my day, actually.
I'm sure your telepathic skills are pretty good, but this time you've got it totally wrong. Just take another try.

----------


## Юрка

> There is the only one way, and all the roads go to the future. The only choise one has is choise to go forth or back. If you do not go forth, it just means you go back to the African savanna.

 Теория неуклонного прогресса и "одного пути" господствует на Западе (кстати, она является основой расизма). А у нас слава богу есть Лев Гумилёв, Вернадский и прочие учёные, которые показали её научную несостоятельность. Нет никакого "одного пути", нет прогрессивных и отсталых этносов, нет причин стесняться своей Родины и языка, мен.

----------


## RedFox

> Теория неуклонного прогресса и "одного пути" господствует на Западе (кстати, она является основой расизма).

 Dear Юрка, I've checked some of your recent posts over, and I would like to tell you if you could be a little bit more modest in your statements, maybe people would treat you with more attention. As in that particular example, where you've messed some unrelated things up.
Sorry, but tolerance to nonsense is definitely not a trait of my personality. 
People were killing and abusing each other for ages without any idea of what racism was. But when they just took a few steps to the better world... and of course! — the western civilization became guilty of racism! Who cares the very same civilization defeated starvation and lots of deadly diseases, developed concepts of equality and human rights, made average human life two times longer...  and gave you opportunity to write all your stuff here, by the way.
If you would really like to prefer another way, you are free to leave western way at any time, but do not forget to throw away your phone, synthetic cloths, any medicines and any other damned stuff.    

> нет причин стесняться своей Родины и языка

 I agree with you absolutely, there isn't any reason of doing that. So why do you do?

----------


## 14Russian

Is Yurka a Communist/Marxist supporter?   Even after translating, his posts make little sense.  
RedFox, do you like Navalny?   Do you really think he's a legitimate 'Opposition' candidate?   Even after getting a 5 yr sentence and is released the next day?  ::  
Imho, the Putin regime, in a nutshell:   1) attempt to establish a EurAsian country (tons of migrants - have lots of non-European foreigners and promote Putin-based support, in other words:  status quo); 2) 'Westernize' the country with similar brainwashing/indoctrination - but, have it according to the Kremlin's rules... 3) have their own version of a Police State;  4) special interest groups (who are NOT ethnic-Russian) are given considerable power despite their low % numbers of the population - as long as they tow the Kremlin line - they can all steal together.   
"У России есть самодостаточность" - Что?   Нет.  Putin doesn't promote self-sufficiency.   He does promote theft, though.

----------


## RedFox

> RedFox, do you like Navalny?   Do you really think he's a legitimate 'Opposition' candidate?   Even after getting a 5 yr sentence and is released the next day?

 Well, I can say, Navalny is not the president I'd like to see elected. Nor even the Major of Moscow or any other city.
But Navalny doing great job of bringing Real Democracy back to the Russian politics. And the word democracy means not only elections in that case, but dramatic change in people's minds.
Even if he were an alien from Mars, he would be helpful.
So... Do I really believe he is such a person as he states himself? Well, I do. I think he is an ordinary lawyer suddenly got into politics. All that is not an evil plan of KGB/CIA/worldwide-jewish-goverment/reptiles-from-Sirius/whatever. 
What about his sentence, he was released not from sentence, but from... mmm... arrest. (I don't remember how it is in Russian exactly, so have no idea how it is in English). Until решение вступило в законную силу, a person can file an appeal, and a judge should назначить меру пресечения for that period of time. A prosecutor asked for arrest as мера пресечения, and the judge accepted this. But the next day the prosecutor changed his mind. Why? In my opinion, there are people in Putin environment who plays against Putin. Authorities are not monolithic, and I think Putin has a lot of enemies there. So those people just use Navalny to rock the boat.
It is not the reason one would stop of trusting Navalny. 
And one more thing. Putin is just an old sick man, so he could get frightened and changed his mind by himself at the last moment. While the command reached the prosecutor, Navalny had already arrested. 
For now, real 5 yr sentence is replaced with suspended sentence.    

> "У России есть самодостаточность" - Что?   Нет.  Putin doesn't promote self-sufficiency.   He does promote theft, though.

 theft-sufficiency? Sounds great! ROFL

----------


## maxmixiv

> Царизм — это buzzword из Советского Союза. There is nothing in the reality that can be named as царизм, as the word makes no sense.

 I guess everyone did understand, what I was complaining about. There is no mechanism to pass power in Russia. Only when current "directors" make a huge amount of some fatal mistakes or "get tired",
such passing becomes possible but occurs in uncontrolled, wild manner. In that sense, we are closer to Egypt than Hungary. Pity.

----------


## RedFox

> I guess everyone did understand, what I was complaining about.

 Well, I didn't, so your guess is not completely true. So thanks for your explanations.
I just wouldn't like to encourage usage of ideologically-colored vocabulary having no clear meaning. We should make use of our reasoning, not some ideological cliches, shouldn't we? 
As for your statements, they are quite fair, but in my opinion the situation is not something what we can just complain about, but a reason to work harder and do our best.

----------


## Hanna

RedFox, thanks for the translations, it helped me.  
I feel a sort of resignation about Democracy in general and  I think the notion that Western countries have a lot to teach Russia about it, is wrong. Democracy is stagnating across Europe, it's nothing special for Russia.   
What is the ideal that you are comparing Russia's democracy with? Is it the USA? or somewhere else? If so, do you really perceive this other country you are comparing with as an ideal - and are Russia's circumstances comparable?  
When democracy evolved in Greece, it was practiced in small city states. Only male, educated, free men could participate in elections. So it's a bit of a matter of interpretation, how "democratic" it really was. People without property, slaves, women - the majority of society, could not participate in the democracy.  
Another thing to bear in mind; on the small scale of the Greek city states, race, religion, language, ethnicity was the same for everyone. That is not the case in large countries where people tend to vote depending on one or more of these factors. Russia has all of these factors playing in.  
People VOTED Hitler into power in a democratic country. Fascism is always around to take advantage of people's lowest instincts when times are tough. Right wing parties are doing really well in many countries in Europe at the moment.  
And take the USA which likes to put itself forward as the greatest modern democracy. It has elections, but the two parties are almost identical in their ideology. There is no ideological alternative to vote for.  
The golden days of democracy are over. Corporations and elites have now learned how to manipulate democracies in the direction that suits them. Take one look at Europe, the USA, and Middle East for starters, and you couldn't but help to see what I mean. People who are working class are easily manipulated by ads/propganda/slogans ahead of elections. The elected officials are subject to multimillion dollar campaigns to go against what's good for the public and support the corporations's agenda. Many cannot resist.  
I remember thinking ca 1990 about Russians, they they sold out all the ideals and everything they had tried to create - for a pair of Levis', a hamburger and a cheap holiday abroad. But then, more importantly, for the possibility of Western democracy.  
Well - I think you got what you wanted, and unfortunately, this is as good as it gets!
If not, which country has the successful democracy that you are aspiring to? 
The living standard in Russia continues to rise and you have personal liberty to the extent that financial circumstances allow it.  In Europe and the USA freedom and liberty is decreasing, people are getting poorer and democracy is increasingly hollowed out. 
When Putin retires, things sill probably change if nothing else.

----------


## RedFox

> What is the ideal that you are comparing Russia's democracy with? Is it the USA? or somewhere else? If so, do you really perceive this other country you are comparing with as an ideal - and are Russia's circumstances comparable?

 I don't think we need any external ideal here.  ::  It should be mainly in heart.   

> When democracy evolved in Greece, it was practiced in small city states. Only male, educated, free men could participate in elections. So it's a bit of a matter of interpretation, how "democratic" it really was. People without property, slaves, women - the majority of society, could not participate in the democracy.

 Comparing to other societies of that time, it undoubtedly was more democratic.
It is incorrect to compare societies who has completely different technological basis. So according to modern standards, Ancient Greece was some kind of Mordor. But did they have any better choise? But we have. If we can build as honest world as modern technologies makes it possible to do, we probably should try that. 
Democracy promotes competition to all levels of the society. More competition — more effective the society works. Technologies get better, people get richer, moral gets more fair. So everybody wins.    

> Another thing to bear in mind; on the small scale of the Greek city states, race, religion, language, ethnicity was the same for everyone. That is not the case in large countries where people tend to vote depending on one or more of these factors. Russia has all of these factors playing in.

  Russia is highly monolitic country. Far more than USA is, for example. I believe every society should do its best in its own way. It makes no sence to find any consensus between completely different cultures. We have some regions here those are not Russian at all. Chechens, Ingushes and so on. I think we should give the sovereignty to those regions. Let they go its own way, whatever it is. Russia has no interests in those regions now, they just remained as a part of our state from the time when the Empire waged war against Ottoman.
So when we get them away, there will be no significant obstacles for keeping consensus between different parts of the country and the society.   

> People VOTED Hitler into power in a democratic country. Fascism is always around to take advantage of people's lowest instincts when times are tough. Right wing parties are doing really well in many countries in Europe at the moment.

 In my opinion, danger of fascism is really overrated in the modern world. First, fascism as a monolitic ideology is possible only in highly monolitic information environment. Fascism in the age of Internet looks strange.
Second, fascism is badly ineffective, comparing to any other political systems.
And third, bad things sometimes happen. People could vote Hitler and so on. One could walk on the street and be killed by a brick falling from a roof.
If you go somewhere, sometimes you win. If you stay, you lose always.   

> The golden days of democracy are over. Corporations and elites have now learned how to manipulate democracies in the direction that suits them. Take one look at Europe, the USA, and Middle East for starters, and you couldn't but help to see what I mean. People who are working class are easily manipulated by ads/propganda/slogans ahead of elections. The elected officials are subject to multimillion dollar campaigns to go against what's good for the public and support the corporations's agenda. Many cannot resist.

 The golden days of democracy are still somewhere in the future. It is first time in the history now when people organized in horizontal structures got chance to fight against corporations and tirans. Nowadays, modern technologies create new incredible ways and tools for implementing democratic society. All the old world is going to die, we are standing on the edge of something unbelievable. 
This year, Navalny took 30% on Moscow Major elections. That result is not due to "multimillion dollar campaign", nor support of the goverment. It is the result taken under total informational isolation and constant pressing by officials. Funding of his campaign is done by such people as me or you, not big corporations. Whole election campaign, beginning from designing the first leaflet and up to the day of elections, is the result of work of ordinal people too. 
This time it was 30%, the next time it will be 60%. This time it was only Navalny, the next time it will be a lot of people in different regions. 
No one politician now can be sure he is free to control and deceive people.    

> The living standard in Russia continues to rise and you have personal liberty to the extent that financial circumstances allow it.

 I hardly can agree to you that the country where all social institutions are going to die may be named as arising in living standards. 20 sorts of apples in a shop is not yet a high living standard, when medical aid, police, education and any guarantees of safety from the state are virtually nonexistent and defunct. 
People are fed of all that, people want to live respectable life, not to fight for survival. 
Hope, we will solve many of these problems in the foreseeable future.
And of course, hope people of Europe and US will advance in that way too.

----------


## maxmixiv

> Hope, we will solve many of these problems in the foreseeable future.

 Indeed, hardly ever existed big country not able to conduct at least single serious reform (when everything needs to be reformed).
It seems inevitable that things will change, even for such vicious pessimist like me.

----------


## Hanna

> I don't think we need any external ideal here.  It should be mainly in heart.  
> Comparing to other societies of that time, it undoubtedly was more democratic.
> It is incorrect to compare societies who has completely different technological basis. So according to modern standards, Ancient Greece was some kind of Mordor. But did they have any better choise? But we have. If we can build as honest world as modern technologies makes it possible to do, we probably should try that. 
> Democracy promotes competition to all levels of the society. More competition — more effective the society works. Technologies get better, people get richer, moral gets more fair. So everybody wins.  
>  Russia is highly monolitic country. Far more than USA is, for example. I believe every society should do its best in its own way. It makes no sence to find any consensus between completely different cultures. We have some regions here those are not Russian at all. Chechens, Ingushes and so on. I think we should give the sovereignty to those regions. Let they go its own way, whatever it is. Russia has no interests in those regions now, they just remained as a part of our state from the time when the Empire waged war against Ottoman.
> So when we get them away, there will be no significant obstacles for keeping consensus between different parts of the country and the society.  
> In my opinion, danger of fascism is really overrated in the modern world. First, fascism as a monolitic ideology is possible only in highly monolitic information environment. Fascism in the age of Internet looks strange.
> Second, fascism is badly ineffective, comparing to any other political systems.
> And third, bad things sometimes happen. People could vote Hitler and so on. One could walk on the street and be killed by a brick falling from a roof.
> ...

 I thought your answers were really good, even if they were contradictory to some of the things I said. So I will not argue back. There are two sides to the coin.  
It would be fantastic if the golden days of democracy were ahead of us, like you say, and if technology could be used to improve that (rather than, as it seems at the moment - it turns us into consumption robots, and spies on us!)  
I agree with you that fascism has _some_ good points, and that things are not quite as black and white as they are sometimes presented. But I never thought a Russian person would agree with it. The issue is: After seeing what the Nazis did to the Jews, and their views on Eastern Europe in general, it's just not possible to condone any aspect of their ideology, on principle.   
Can you explain what aspects of life in Russia are unacceptably bad: I mean in terms of the things you mentioned, like healthcare, education police? 
I watch news from Russia and I see well-dressed, smart people going about their business just like any other country. I know that pensions are too small for old people, and that there are social problems with alcoholism and unemployment. But everyone has food on the table and a roof over their head right? And you get healthcare if you need it - OR?  I am really curious - I haven't been to Russia since childhood; was planning to go there a couple of years ago, but had some visa problems and only ended up visiting Ukraine and Belarus. 
My impression is that "living standard" is rising for the majority of Russians. But I could have the wrong impression. So it would be helpful if you clarified.  
Comparing Russia (from TV) with Ukraine and Belarus, which I visited on that trip; firstly I only saw big cities in Ukraine. There was poverty, but not extreme. Most people seemed ok and everything was functioning even though a bit run-down in places. It's a safe country. 
Belarus surprised me - looked in much better shape than Ukraine, even there was a monetary crisis in progress. Things were better organised and you could tell the state had a finger in everything. Strangely enough, there were some luxury designer shops in the middle of Minsk. Right next to Soviet style shops with super-cheap locally produced stuff.  People driving expensive fourwheelers etc. No unemployment, and no in-your-face poverty, apart from old ladies selling flowers to make cash when they should have been home enjoying their retirement. I was none the wiser as to what is really going on there, but it is a very nice country!  
My impression is that Russia is miles ahead of both these countries in terms of people's incomes. 
Or are you talking about something else?

----------


## RedFox

> Can you explain what aspects of life in Russia are unacceptably bad: I mean in terms of the things you mentioned, like healthcare, education police?

 Education: 
Most of universities and high schools are completely useless as a source of knowledge and skills. Educational programs are outdated for ages. Professors accept bribes. Educational culture is mostly ruined.
If you got a diploma, it just means you had been sitting in a university for 5-6 years, nothing more. 
Status of higher education in nowadays Russia can be described with the following joke: https://pp.vk.me/c409021/v409021192/...Lv6QC8Fvp8.jpg 
Of course, there are exceptions. My friend got a diploma as a specialist of quality management and lean production. As she told me, it was really hard to get that diploma, not some kind of fake. She failed to find a job in those fields, though.
And that is the reason of that state of affairs with higher education: no any job. No modern productions. Putin's Russia sells oil and buys consumer goods. No reason to develop anything. Economics consists of extractive industries and services sector. So people just go to universities because that is some kind of tradition. (Young men usually go to universities to avoid being drafted to forces.) But least of them will be able to get a job as specialists. 
The obvious solution: to withdraw educational licenses of redundant universities and academies and to promote competition between the remaining ones — that solution seems never to come to mind of our government.  
Healthcare: 
Soviet hospitals were not fantastic at all, but they were at least approximately at the same level as hospitals in Western countries of that time. For now, the government takes almost no care for the state hospitals. So many of them looks like these now: uglich_jj - Ад русских больниц , uglich_jj - Ад русских больниц. Часть 2. 
You are still able to get free health care in the state hospitals, but its quality can be entirely unpredictable. Some hospitals are good, some hospitals are just terrible. Some doctors are brilliant, but most of them are very unprofessional. 
The second part of the state healthcare system is local polyclinics. With them, there are problem too: salaries are very low, so few people want to work there.  
Police: 
Police just does not work here.
Police is totally corrupted and "catches no mice". They can rob, rape, sell drugs — nobody is surprised. Sometimes they do catch some criminals — that is really surprising.
The same with ФСБ. They should fight against terrorists or something like that. In fact, they are terrorist by themselves, putting people in prison on any Putin's order.     

> I agree with you that fascism has some good points

 Uh, I didn't say so.
Fascism is some kind of disease that can infect an unfortunate society. As well as Stalin's regime for example.
But in modern world, the infection seems to be almost impossible, so no reason to be feared of fascism.

----------


## Alex_krsk

Democracy doesn't exist.
What's more important: living standards or electoral system?
Wht's so democratic about  

> healthcare, education police?

----------


## Hanna

Redfox; thanks for the thorough run-down of public services and employment opportunities.  
HEALTHCARE: 
This issue is close to heart for me. I think decent healthcare is a citizen's right in a developed country.
I can see how you find it disturbing. Those hospital pictures were DISGUSTING. I remember seeing such pics in the 1990s and it killed my sympathy for socialism/communism and the countries involved, at the time. It was obvious that a lot of people simply hadn't been doing their jobs, for things to degrade so badly, and it was a really bad reflection on the whole society, for educated people to let things go that far. It's incomprehensible really. Can't see how a country can have a top notch space program, be a leading in multiple sports and sciences and not manage to run decent hospitals, and I still don't.  
It's like Lampada said in a previous post: You can judge a society by how it treats the weakest members.  
If that's the standard in the toilets, you have to wonder what the standard of surgery and other medical therapies are!  
I really thought things had improved a lot, but it seems they have not!   
EDUCATION: 
Well, ruining education is the best way to ruin a country in a longer perspective, isn't it!? No wonder you are upset!  
Again another thing that was probably decent in Soviet days, or how else could there be so many good scientists? 
It's particularly disturbing to hear about bribes and corruption.  
I guess for a person with a decent income, they could solve the problem by paying for private education, but you shouldn't have to!   Here in the UK it's like this, and in the USA to a degree, as far as I can understand. And it creates a terrible class society with an elite being educated separately from scratch, and regular people's children getting a bad education in state schools.  
Finally, POLICE, There has been some threads about that here, before you started. Corrupt and useless policemen etc. 
Not paid enough? Or what's the problem. How can people feel safe, if they can't trust the police....?    
I have to agree with Alex krsk though. Healthcare, police and education are not necessarily linked to democracy. Saudi Arabia has excellent healthcare for their citizens. That's very far from a democracy. Likewise Singapore ranks top 5 in the world in all these area, and that's not a democracy either.   *I think Edinaya Rossia has had long enough to do something about corruption now though. And improve education and healthcare.* They had well over a decade. If there is no improvement soon, then I think you need a change of government! I have no idea who could do a better job, but 15 years is long enough to turn things around, so that people can notice a difference.

----------


## maxmixiv

> Not paid enough? Or what's the problem.

 Разруха - она в головах. Деньги бесполезны, если руководителям на всех уровнях плевать, в каком состоянии находится вверенное им хозяйство. 
Edinaya Rossia  is just a set of thousands disparate men and women. Every one, having had some power in the beginning of 2000, was insistently persuaded to join the party, half of them were the corruptionists. We need to ask Aliens to bring back the order. 
Funny stories. 
Recently I spent much time in the hospital (my knee cap had cracked). I don't want to return there! I highly advise anyone to protect his/her bones and junctions as carefully as possible. 
Story 1
I could walk, but couldn't bend my leg (there was a plaster on it). The toilet, as usually, was situated just behind the door. As a result, any one with a unbending leg had a reasonable choice: either to sit down, either to close the door. 
Story 2
I must say, that even to get into the hospital, one need to have steel nerves and good spare of health.
Many people in my ward (in fact, all 9 of them) was injured in the country-side, and often they had to stay in their country hospitals for 6..8 month because the surgery are being accomplished only in one city hospital, which is tiny. For a such time lapse, all fractures are consolidated by themselves (poorly). Take into account that most villagers HAVE to keep their peasant lifestyle: vegetable garden, care for cattle, poultry, etc.  
Story 3
There are rumors , that nurses in country hospitals (районная больница) receive salary equal to $60 (2000 рублей). 
Story 4 
One old man was ready to leave the ward (and at last to clear place for a next patient), but, unfortunately, it had been slight raining for several days, and the roads become unusable. I remembered from 1980s, how the bus rode to village but not back, because rains happened just in inappropriate time. I thought, they laid asphalt since then, but, alas, no.
30 years has passed. 
Curtain. 
Hanna, our health care is wild mix of free and very expensive services. People are totally confused with the system. In short, you go to your local поликлиника for free, but then you will be directed to expensive examinations and other specialists (which are present only in paid agencies). So, поликлиника is good, if you have plain nasal cold, but in other circumstances, you are out of luck. Prepare you money.
Medicines, of course, for money (much more expensive than in Czech rep. for example). In hospital they will pull money from you, or will propose to buy needed medicines for yourself ("we don't have them"), though as far as I understand, hospitals are being funded by State, and everything should be free for patients.
So, our public places and internet are FLOODED with the notes like this 11-летнему мальчику-боксеру собирают деньги на лечение — НГС.НОВОСТИ Омск

----------


## maxmixiv

Also,if someone would start thread "Is Russia a developed country?" instead of dubious "democracy" thing, you could learn A LOT about everyday life in Russia.  Стал известен маршрут эстафеты олимпийского огня в Омске 
(No need to read the article, just note the Comments below article  ::  )

----------


## Alex_krsk

I've spent one third of my life in the USSR one third in the US and one third in Russia. And I can tell that Russia is the best place among these three. 
Talking abou personal freedom Russia is much more free than US and EU countries. 
What about democracy, i hear a lot about unfair vote counting, but all whom i ask voted for Putin. (?)   

> Healthcare, police and education

 If all those who complain about healthcare in Russia tried medical system e.g. of the US with it's nice restrooms  that would sober them down right away. 
It's not like i'm comfortable with bad condotins in hospitals. I just know that things are getting better dispite the fact that we all pay 6 - 15 % tax. 
The same about police. You woldn't like it to deal with police in the US.  

> Not paid enough?

   lowest police salary in Russia now is about 1000 euros.   

> I think Edinaya Rossia has had long enough to do something about corruption now though. And improve education and healthcare. They had well over a decade.

 No it's not enough. People (including those municipal officials) had zero budget culture after 70 years of dictatorship. It takes time to grow. 
Russia now is a great place full of opportunities for those who want to work.  It depends on you what do you want: to work or to keep on complaining scaring each other with some horrific pics.

----------


## RedFox

> Finally, POLICE, There has been some threads about that here, before you started. Corrupt and useless policemen etc. 
> Not paid enough?

  That is not the question. The system works in the "negative selection" mode. If Putin is thief and all his ministers are thiefs, could they build fair system? So the system degrades, day by day. That movement may not be visible on close distance, but if we look 10 years back, we can clearly see the whole process. "Рыба гниёт с головы."
So all good cops either leaved police or turned into bad cops. 
Police can be reformed only when the president actually decides to do that. For example, as Saakashvili did it in Georgia. He fired all the road police services entirely and created them anew by hiring persons who never served as policemen before.    

> I have to agree with Alex krsk though. Healthcare, police and education are not necessarily linked to democracy. Saudi Arabia has excellent healthcare for their citizens. That's very far from a democracy. Likewise Singapore ranks top 5 in the world in all these area, and that's not a democracy either.

 ...and they can kill their women for any ridiculous reason in Saudi Arabia too. Uh, thanks, that is not an option. I prefer to have both freedom and social services, not to sell one of them for another. 
Russia is controlled by "the system of crooks and thieves". The only way to bring the country to worthy life is to destroy the system entirely and make sure it will never be able to arise. And the only way to do so in our circumstances is the democratic nationalistic revolution. 
In Singapore, they built a fair state with some kind of dictatorship, and their results are very impressive. But that way does not match our mentality. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew *created* the whole new nation from fragments of different ethnic groups that lived in Singapore of that time. He is a great person, I think. But here in Russia we already have Russian nation. So we don't need any kind of dictators, but only our own will.    

> *I think Edinaya Rossia has had long enough to do something about corruption now though. And improve education and healthcare.* They had well over a decade. If there is no improvement soon, then I think you need a change of government! I have no idea who could do a better job, but 15 years is long enough to turn things around, so that people can notice a difference.

 The fact is Edinaya Rossia *was never intended* to develop anything, but only to steal and lie. Too bad, it took too long time for us to understand that. The real resistance against the system of crooks began only 2 years ago, so now we have to go long way.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> The only way to bring the country to worthy life is to destroy the system entirely and make sure it will never be able to arise.

  

> Весь мир насилья мы разрушим до основанья а затем...

   Было уже. Что было затем все знают   

> And the only way to do so in our circumstances is the democratic nationalistic revolution.

 Национал-социалистическую революцию? А нет национал-демократическую... тогда ладно  ::    

> But here in Russia we already have Russian nation.

 This reminds me something. 
Do you like beer, btw?

----------


## RedFox

> Было уже. Что было затем все знают

  Левых надо держать на пушечный выстрел от власти. А то они такого понастроят...   

> This reminds me something.

 Тю! И чего же?   

> Do you like beer, btw?

  Раз в полгода.

----------


## Юрка

> Левых надо держать на пушечный выстрел от власти. А то они такого понастроят...

 Среди правых сволочей не меньше. Вообще сволочи размазаны равномерно среди всех групп населения.

----------


## RedFox

> Среди правых сволочей не меньше. Вообще сволочи размазаны равномерно среди всех групп населения.

 Дело не в сволочах, а в специфическом искажении восприятия, которое не позволяет левым управлять государством.

----------


## DrBaldhead

> The only way to bring the country to worthy life is to destroy the system entirely and make sure it will never be able to arise. And the only way to do so in our circumstances is the democratic nationalistic revolution.

 (Дeleted. L.)У нас уже наломались, сломали, все просрали, что можно, на весь мир облажались, до сих пор обтекаем. (Deleted. L/) нам разрушений хватит  - мы уже строим новое общество, чего граждане (Deleted. L.) предпочитают не замечать.
(Deleted. L.)считают, что лучшим для русского народа почему-то будет опять сломать (Deleted.L.) государство.

----------


## RedFox

> мы уже строим новое общество

  (Deleted.L.)

----------


## DrBaldhead

(Deleted. L.)

----------


## Lampada

> Среди правых сволочей не меньше. Вообще сволочи размазаны равномерно среди всех групп населения.

 Inflaming statement = trolling

----------


## Lampada

> (Дeleted. L.)У нас уже наломались, сломали, все просрали, что можно, на весь мир облажались, до сих пор обтекаем. (Deleted. L/) нам разрушений хватит  - мы уже строим новое общество, чего граждане (Deleted. L.) предпочитают не замечать.
> (Deleted. L.)считают, что лучшим для русского народа почему-то будет опять сломать (Deleted.L.) государство.

 Как зачинатель перепалки с переходом на личности, получаешь предупреждение.

----------


## Юрка

> Дело не в сволочах, а в специфическом искажении восприятия, которое не позволяет левым управлять государством.

 Левые нормально управляли, пока в их внуках не кончился революционный энтузиазм. Теперь эти внуки стали отличными правыми. 
А порядочность позволяет компенсировать недостатки любого мировоззрения. У правых тоже есть искажения. Например, в 1930-ые годы в США был голод, а они уничтожали продукты, чтобы спасти рынок (а не людей). Они (а именно банки) отнимали у фермеров землю. Они сгоняли их на принудительные работы по строительству дорог (ГУЛАГ по-американски).  

> Inflaming statement = trolling

 1. Мне кажется, что Вы используете термины, смысл которых не понимаете (троллинг).
2. Мне кажется, что Вы не стремитесь к тому, чтобы я понял ваши предупреждения (англ. язык).

----------


## RedFox

> Левые нормально управляли, пока в их внуках не кончился революционный энтузиазм.

 Если вы в следующем сообщении собираетесь рассказать, как Сталин замечательно поднял страну с колен, а потом деды-воевали-бабки-помогали, то давайте просто не будем. Эти разговоры уже утомили до невозможности.

----------


## RedFox

Кстати я согласен, что Lampada напрасно назвала тот пост троллингом. Обычное мнение было высказано.

----------


## RedFox

> (Deleted.L.)

 Извиняюсь, что ввязался в перепалку.

----------


## Lampada

> Кстати я согласен, что Lampada напрасно назвала тот пост троллингом. Обычное мнение было высказано.

 Может, для кого-то и обычное, но на нашем форуме обидно такое читать.

----------


## Юрка

> Если вы в следующем сообщении собираетесь... утомили до невозможности.

 Замечу только, что это называется переходом на личности. Вы комментируете не обсуждаемый предмет, а мои намерения и вашу реакцию на мои намерения.  
P.S. Но Лампада такие вещи не замечает.  

> Может, для кого-то и обычное, но на нашем форуме обидно такое читать.

 Сами по себе грубые слова, если они не направлены на участника форума, не являются оскорбительными. Здесь же даже мат обсуждался без купюр, с точки зрения филологии.

----------


## RedFox

> Если вы в следующем сообщении собираетесь... утомили до невозможности.
> 			
> 		  Замечу только, что это называется переходом на личности. Вы комментируете не обсуждаемый предмет, а мои намерения и вашу реакцию на мои намерения.

 Вообще-то это называется предложением "давайте не телепать друг другу мозги".
Я прекрасно знаю ваши аргумент, вы прекрасно знаете мои. В чем смысл этого разговора? 
А еще это называется наглым искажением моих слов, поскольку в вашей цитате моего поста "разговоры, которые утомили" изящно превратились в "вас, который меня утомил".
За сим откланиваюсь. Больше с вами в диалоги вступать не намерен, поскольку вы либо не умеете читать, либо тролль.

----------


## 14Russian

For the record, I think it's unfortunate DrBaldhead's statements/comments got censored.   (Ditto for whatever provoked RedFox's rebuttal being moderated?).   I find myself disagreeing with most of what DrBaldhead states about politics (hehe - I think so, anyway) but I doubt he said anything really that bad requiring that.   Imho, it's good to see Russians get passionate and emotional about things that concern their country.   Whether I agree with or not, I think they should try to evaluate what is going on.   All imho, of course.   I also have confidence that they can moderate themselves.   They don't seem to get out of line much - but, that's just my impression.

----------


## Hanna

> That is not the question. The system works in the "negative selection" mode. If Putin is thief and all his ministers are thiefs, could they build fair system? So the system degrades, day by day. That movement may not be visible on close distance, but if we look 10 years back, we can clearly see the whole process. "Рыба гниёт с головы."
> So all good cops either leaved police or turned into bad cops. 
> Police can be reformed only when the president actually decides to do that. For example, as Saakashvili did it in Georgia. He fired all the road police services entirely and created them anew by hiring persons who never served as policemen before.   
> ...and they can kill their women for any ridiculous reason in Saudi Arabia too. Uh, thanks, that is not an option. I prefer to have both freedom and social services, not to sell one of them for another. 
> Russia is controlled by "the system of crooks and thieves". The only way to bring the country to worthy life is to destroy the system entirely and make sure it will never be able to arise. And the only way to do so in our circumstances is the democratic nationalistic revolution. 
> In Singapore, they built a fair state with some kind of dictatorship, and their results are very impressive. But that way does not match our mentality. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew *created* the whole new nation from fragments of different ethnic groups that lived in Singapore of that time. He is a great person, I think. But here in Russia we already have Russian nation. So we don't need any kind of dictators, but only our own will.  
> The fact is Edinaya Rossia *was never intended* to develop anything, but only to steal and lie. Too bad, it took too long time for us to understand that. The real resistance against the system of crooks began only 2 years ago, so now we have to go long way.

 I'm not arguing with you on this RedFox, you are much better placed to judge this than me. 
However it seems like you ought to get politically involved in some party with a concrete program to achieve change. You obviously has strong feelings about this.   *But whatever the fix is, it has to come from inside Russia, driven by Russians*. Nobody else can solve your problems, or truly has your best interests at heart. Not the EU, not the USA and nobody else. Convincing a foreigner that things are crap in Russia doesn't change anything, apart from perhaps discouraging people from all things Russian. It's the Russians who have to want to change. 
As for me, I like the culture and language of Russi, want to be able to visit there and feel safe, but apart from that, the politics of Russia is up to the Russians. I am neither going to jump on the Western bias about Russia, nor believe some spin doctor who would claim that it's a faultless country. I also prefer to look for positives and not come here and bring up every bad thing I ever heard about Russia.

----------


## Eric C.

> I'm not arguing with you on this RedFox, you are much better placed to judge this than me. 
> However it seems like you ought to get politically involved in some party with a concrete program to achieve change. You obviously has strong feelings about this.   *But whatever the fix is, it has to come from inside Russia, driven by Russians*. Nobody else can solve your problems, or truly has your best interests at heart. Not the EU, not the USA and nobody else. Convincing a foreigner that things are crap in Russia doesn't change anything, apart from perhaps discouraging people from all things Russian. It's the Russians who have to want to change. 
> As for me, I like the culture and language of Russi, want to be able to visit there and feel safe, but apart from that, the politics of Russia is up to the Russians. I am neither going to jump on the Western bias about Russia, nor believe some spin doctor who would claim that it's a faultless country. I also prefer to look for positives and not come here and bring up every bad thing I ever heard about Russia.

 Yeah, pretty much the same attitude you have about any other country. =)) Here comes a paradox - what if *the Russians* think it's not just up to them, and want somebody else to help them solve some of their problems?  ::

----------


## Hanna

> Yeah, pretty much the same attitude you have about any other country. =)) Here comes a paradox - what if *the Russians* think it's not just up to them, and want somebody else to help them solve some of their problems?

 That's exactly what happened in the 1990s. The USA (and Europe) sent in anyone from businessmen, corporations, missionaries, journalists, spies, fashion designers and human rights activists to teach the Russians how to runt their country, after communism. And Russia let them in. Even more so in other ex Soviet republics. 
So to summarise: They have already tried that.  
But maybe they didn't try hard enough last time, is that what you are saying, Eric? 
Maybe Russia needs to be a colony of the USA, or perhaps even or the 51st state of the USA? 
Maybe you could take on some of the US foreign debt as compensation - since Russia has hardly no debt compared to the USA.  
And in return the USA could teach the Russians all about how to run a democratic, prosperous and peaceful country where everybody lives happily ever after... 
How about it, Russians? 
[That's enough time wasted by me on Eric's trolling - as provocative and silly as it is, it's not worth wasting time on]

----------


## RedFox

> what if *the Russians* think it's not just up to them, and want somebody else to help them solve some of their problems?

 Это вряд ли.  ::  
А вот украинцы, похоже, действительно верят, что EU обязан им помогать.  ::

----------


## Юрка

> вы либо не умеете читать, либо тролль.

 Ну вот, опять обсуждаете меня, обзываетесь. Если модератор разрешил, то это не значит, что культурный человек (фразу "за сим откланиваюсь" расцениваю как претензию на культурность) этим воспользуется. 
Что касается "не умеете читать": 
1. Ваша цитата не искажена, так как там стоит многоточие.
2. Моя фраза "вашу реакцию на мои намерения" говорит о том, что вашу реакцию ("утомили") я отношу не к себе, а к своим намерениям (что-либо написать).
Таким образом ваши претензии ко мне считаю беспочвенными. 
P.S. Лампада, я бы конечно написал это в личном сообщении, но приходится публично, так как наезд был публичным.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> However it seems like you ought to get politically involved in some party with a concrete program to achieve change.

 That "concrete program" as was cited above is called national-socialism. And those paries and programs are banned in all european countries including Russia.

----------


## RedFox

> That "concrete program" as was cited above is called national-socialism. And those paries and programs are banned in all european countries including Russia.

  Советую отучиться говорить за других. Полезный навык, в жизни пригодится.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Советую отучиться говорить за других. Полезный навык, в жизни пригодится.

 Кому советуете, если мне, то это нарушение правил форума и безосновательно. Если всем, то совет весьма полезен.

----------


## RedFox

> Кому советуете, если мне, то это нарушение правил форума и безосновательно.

 Кроме правил форума, бывают еще правила совести.

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Кроме правил форума, бывают еще правила совести.

 Если правила совести выходят за рамки правил форума, это не оправдывает и не может являться основанием нарушения последних. 
З.Ы. Совесть у каждого своя, а форум у нас общий.

----------


## RedFox

> З.Ы. Совесть у каждого своя, а форум у нас общий.

 Ага. Ваша совесть позволяет вам нарушать границы других людей.

----------


## Alex_krsk

(D)

----------


## RedFox

> Мне моя - нет. (если это был вопрос)

 Это был не вопрос, поскольку там отсутствует вопросительный знак.   

> Мне моя - нет.

  Ну разумеется нет, а незнакомого человека вы ярлыком национал-социалиста припечатали просто по недоразумению. А знаете... я вам верю.  ::

----------


## Alex_krsk

(D)

----------


## Lampada

Вы бы могли вынести вашу личную переписку в соотвествующее место?

----------


## Alex_krsk

> Вы бы могли вынести вашу личную переписку в соотвествующее место?

 Прошу прощения (начал не я) 
Обосновываю свой пост, который частью "переписки" не являлся   

> And the only way to do so in our circumstances is the democratic nationalistic revolution.
> ... here in Russia we already have Russian nation

  

> Мы могли назвать себя Либеральная партия. Но мы решили назваться Национал-социалистами. Мы не интернационалисты. Наш социализм национален. Мы требуем исполнения государством справедливых требований трудящихся классов на основе расовой солидарности. Для нас раса и государство — это единое целое. 
> We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.

----------


## RedFox

> Я ярлыки не печатаю. Я анализирую публичные высказывания и публикую собственные выводы. (Собственно в этом один из смыслов интернет форумов)

 Вас никто не просил публиковать ваши выводы о моих политических взглядах. Вы залезли на чужую территорию.
Понятия "территория" и "нормы поведения" вам знакомы?

----------


## Lampada

Не принуждайте меня закрывать тему.  Ведите себя прилично!
Спасибо!

----------


## it-ogo

Я регулярно читаю штук 5-6 российских сайтов, включая lenta.ru и inosmi.ru. Недавно мне начало казаться, что подборка переводов на inosmi.ru начала здорово дрейфовать в сторону, так сказать, конструктивных статей про Россию и Путина. А теперь вот обращение от lenta.ru с подписями всех постоянных сотрудников, насколько я понял.    

> Мы, безусловно, предполагали, что придут и за нами.

 Интересно, долго ли продержится?  
Таки закручивание гаек? Во все тяжкие?

----------


## Ramil

> Таки закручивание гаек? Во все тяжкие?

 Прикрыли, значит, "рассадник".

----------


## Lampada

Как-никак всё таки есть демократия:   http://life.pravda.com.ua/society/2014/03/13/157273/ 
Хотя неизвестно, как создавался этот список.

----------


## Ramil

> Как-никак всё таки есть демократия:  http://life.pravda.com.ua/society/2014/03/13/157273/ 
> Хотя неизвестно, как создавался этот список.

 Лампада, а при чём здесь демократия?
Список создавался примерно так же как и предыдущий. Какой-нибудь деятель позвонил "звезде" и спросил "солидарны ли вы с народом Украины?

----------


## it-ogo

Ну, Кончаловский, Шевчук, Гребенщиков и Макаревич высказывались и до того вполне персонально и однозначно. Насчет прочих - не знаю. 
Бутусова здесь не хватает. И Цоя, само собой. Впрочем, за Цоя леди Рамазанова вполне сойдет на мой вкус. И тогда получится что старая фрондерская гвардия все еще торты.  ::

----------


## Lampada

> Лампада, а при чём здесь демократия?
> Список создавался примерно так же как и предыдущий. Какой-нибудь деятель позвонил "звезде" и спросил "солидарны ли вы с народом Украины?

 Ладно, тогда свобода слова.

----------


## Ramil

> Ладно, тогда свобода слова.

 Скорее - свобода быть ведомым чужими идеями.

----------


## Lampada

> Скорее - свобода быть ведомым чужими идеями.

 Кстати, это тоже хорошо.  Если есть выбор.

----------


## iCake

> Кстати, это тоже хорошо.  Если есть выбор.

 Все чаете себя иллюзией наличия выбора?  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Кстати, это тоже хорошо.  Если есть выбор.

 Ну, свобода быть идиотом есть всегда. Даже в самых тоталитарных обществах.

----------


## Lampada

> Ну, свобода быть идиотом есть всегда. Даже в самых тоталитарных обществах.

 И то правда. В общем смысле, но, конечно, это не относится ни к кому из нашего коллектива.

----------


## Lampada

На Манежной площади задержали людей с «невидимыми транспарантами»

----------


## Lampada

*Дмитрий Львович Быков* Yesterday at 5:19am · 
"Новая газета"
КОЛОННОЕ 
"Нашлась лишь эта горсточка больных интеллигентов,
Чтоб высказать, что думает здоровый миллион".
Ю.Ким 
Какой эфир ни слушаю, куда я взгляд ни кину — в жежешную полемику, в агитку ли властей, — все тотчас же кидаются орать про Украину, как будто больше нет уже российских новостей. Родимая империя скукожилась настолько, что все определяется в отеческом дому лишь санкциями Запада да просьбами Востока ввести туда такое же, которое в Крыму. Взгляну на Соловьева ли, взгляну на Киселева, смотрю на Соколова ли, на Гришина порой — ну где ж у них проблемы-то эпохи, право слово? Да кто у них герои-то? Сплошной антигерой. На западную мафию нацелен взор влюбленный, дерется с англосаксами отважный царь Горох, повсюду наблюдение за пятою колонной плюс горестные новости из первых четырех. Как будто ни правительства, ни личного состава, ни школы, ни геологов, ни мощных производств, как будто у Отечества проблем уже не стало — а лишь «Медведев встретился» да «Путин произнес». Какое непостижное, извратное влеченье к проклятию, к распятию… Сплошная Скойбеда! Поспорьте хоть о способах леченья-обученья, делах науки-техники, Героях Соцтруда… Ужели наши граждане лавиною единой задумали обрушиться на бывшую сестру, и весь досуг их, Господи, заполнен Украиной, борьбою с мужеложеством и происками ЦРУ? Ужели мы действительно страна второго сорта? Не верю, нет, немыслимо! Ведь есть, в конце концов, цифирь помимо рейтинга, и труд помимо спорта, и не одни душители, и не один Немцов! А то уже, по Бродскому, мы видим лишь руины, сомнительное варево из желчи и слюней. Давайте хоть о чем-нибудь помимо Украины, да можно б и сенаторов представить поскромней. С российской точки зрения, идет осада Трои, весь мир на нас окрысился, кругом сплошная жесть… Но есть же население, проблемы и герои, свои, не заграничные, какие ни на есть!
Во времена советские — их каждый третий помнит, — родному телевиденью вполне хватало тем. Как мы глумились, юные, над тем «Рабочим полднем», над черно-белым «Временем», над «Сельским часом» тем! Андропов был не лапонька, и Брежнев был не зайка, и «Время» было мутное — «станки-станки-станки», — но складывалась, граждане, какая-то мозаика — благодаря вещанию, а чаще вопреки. Случались и дискуссии — о фильмах, о морали: не только кулинарные программы о борще! Не только огрызались мы, и не всегда карали, а про колонну пятую молчали вообще. Ну да, инакомыслящих метут по психбольницам, и рейтинг Бровеносного превыше сотни всполз, — но главным инфоповодом там не был Солженицын, и академик Сахаров упоминался вскользь… Сегодня охранительство, подобное горилле, ликует беспрепятственно. Сигнал резвиться дан. Но черти, что б вы делали, о чем бы говорили, когда б не нацпредатели, не Крым и не Майдан?! Прости меня, о Родина, за это злое слово. Не цацкается с крысами Верховный Крысолов. И что в тебе, прости меня, сегодня есть живого?
Лишь мы.
Да эти санкции.
Да Крым.
Да Киселев.  * *

----------


## Lampada

Vladimir Lyakhovsky 
Чтобы отвлечь внимание и успокоить бдительность спецслужбы ненавязчиво вещают на страну:
То Сноуден про Викиликс расскажет доверительно, то Чапман про коррупцию, то Глоба про войну.
С завидною настырностью по ящику транслируют, как эстафета радостна,бодра и весела, 
Подряд четыре месяца, как будто делать нечего, энтузиасты радостно таскают факела. 
Реликвию бесценную серьёзные товарищи спецрейсами во все концы торжественно везут,
И журналисты с пафосом, воспользовавшись случаем, хвалы организаторам во славу пропоют.
Как факоносцы бодрые таскают эти факелы покажут нам по ящику на дню по десять раз. 
Не знаю, как без даты мы бы жили ожидания, которую заботливо считали каждый час. 
Газпром газифицирует и что есть сил старается доставить Достояние, взбодрить упавший дух. 
Какой национальности, кому-что причитается, нам доведут доходчиво СМИ- наш лучший друг. 
Безудержно расширились расходы олимпийские, строители дербанят нефтегазовый бюджет, 
Прокуратура тщательно расследует строительство, Козак наверх докладывает: денег больше нет.
Министры возмущается, прокуратура пыжится найти куда потрачены народные рубли,
И следствие мурыжится, а деньги олимпийские, средства каким-то образом давно уж протрясли.
Церковнички придумали для паствы развлечение, окропив её веничком, благославляют путь,
Бормочет люд молитовки, теснится в изумлении, на Дефицит из Греции так хочется взглянуть,
Как стадо неразумное, от счастья одуревшее, готово хоть чего-нибудь коснутся при свечах;
Лабзнув Дары украдкою, бочком на выход грешные, аллюром направляются и истовость в очах.
И прессой неподкупною настырно нам внушается, каким героем славным был Шарон, наш генерал, 
как бился он за родину с Египетом в Израиле и как несвоевреенно он жизнь свою отдал. 
И СМИ навзрыд заплакали о незабвенной памяти, о том, каким был праведным за родину радел, 
и сам Нарышкин в кипочке потерю невозвратную оплакивать усопшего в Исраэль полетел.
За жопу взятый Киевець, в конець проворовавшийся, Европой отманданутый метнулся к москалям:
Спасайте нэзалэжную, подкиньте братьям денежку, на газ скостите ценушку хотя бы впополам!
Без заема российского мы вымрем, аки мамонты, Эвросоюз не нужен нам, сгори Эвропа та.
А мы взамен согласные вступить куда прикажете, хоть в ваш союз таможенный, хоть всё одно куда.
Пока одни майданили, Эвропа менжевалася, как лучше нас с пиндосами больнее укусить
Россия возмущённая не долго сомневалася, и Крым себе оттяпала, чтоб споры погасить. - Это всё к тому же КОЛОННОМУ

----------

