The state of Russian "democracy"

This is fallacy, Russians need freedom just as any other nation. You don't undersand why they are mostly not protesting against Putin's policy? If you will know how ordinary people live in Russian regions, which kind of freedom they have lost since Yeltsin's time, and what they gained - may be you will understand. What I see here is mostly blind repeating information from Western media - "Russians sold their freedom for the piece of bread".
I'm not disputing that the social shake-up of Russian society post the Soviet Union was terrific and nothing to celebrate.

The rest is your conjecture, and your hyperbole. Which looks more convenient than substantial at this point.
If consider facts, this is true. However you should understand that often, the information you get about situation with democracy in Russia is linked with what you called "implications of various western nations' foreign policies". Do you know any country which is unfriendly to USA and in the same time considered in the world as democratic? Or may be any USA ally which is criticized in the world press for lack of human rights and democracy the same way as Russia or China? Today for West, any country which is potential competitor = undemocratic country. Allies and puppets are all democratic by definition or at least not criticized.
Considering media pluralism, organisational freedom and the freedom of the press is in hell of a lot better shape outside Russia than inside Russia, I'd say you are portrying the west as operating exactly like Russia here. Which is not the case.

I'm not asking why Russians don't like the policies of the west directed against it. I'm asking why they don't miss having a better operating system of a free and open society at home?

From what I'm getting now is 1) people are unhappy with the Yeltsin years (as if that was the only alternative) and 2) people are unhappy with the treatment of Russia by the west (fair enough, but beside the point re what Russians want Russia to be like).
 
Yeltsin is a transition between Gorbachev and Putin. So yes, it's not really surprising that the transition has passed and peace returned to most of Russian soil.

The more important thing - what freedom ordinary people lost? From dozens TV channels, 3 moved from Berezovsky and Gusinsky to Putin's control?

Why India and Brazil are considered democratic while Russia and China not? It's because India and Brazil qualifies, and Russia and China simply not.

I'm not sure I would prefer to live in India or Brazil than in modern China. And if consider period of 1970-1985, I certainly would prefer to live in the USSR than in India or Brazil.
 
Country passed through 2 revolutions, 2 world wars, 1 civil war and several smaller wars in the first half of XX century. Should we compare this period with present time? Or we must repeat such experience again to live well and be happy?



There was no shortage in the USSR before ~1988. I haven't met beggars or homeless people before Perestroika. After "democratic reforms", country was destroyed and living standards reduced dramatically - this is a fact. May be target was a communism, but all Soviet people and country got hit.



I can understand people who don't like authoritarian, but saying that Russians sold their freedom is not the same.

1. Since then, any authoritarian is good? Because time was harsh? Time was no less harsh in France and west Germany after WWII, yet they don't go that way.

2. There's no beggars and homeless people in communism-- they're all detained in camps. We got about millions of people who commit petty crimes in these labor re-education camp, indefinitely. That's how authoritarianism works, they're not political prisoners, but it is better for the authority to keep those "low-level scums" in line.

Their US counterparts formed NWA, mind you compare.

3. Russians didn't sell their freedom. Little freedom was granted to Russian citizens, during Gorbachev and Yeltsin's time.

Perestroika and Glasnost were Gorbachev's propaganda tools both to fight against old school cadres and rising dissidents. (You know that Sakharov protested Gorbachev as sham freedom promoter) Yet it made military leaders nervous and couped him. After the coup, Yeltsin (if Gorbachev was considered social democratic, Yeltsin would be a right-wing nationalist) took power and tried his best to purge the left opposition and right wing liberals.

It was hard for Yeltsin to consolidate power from various oppositions covering every spectrum--old communists, liberals, ethnic minority nationalists, the economy came to a shock just like every former communist country. Yeltsin used iron fist to dissolve the Dumas in 1993--clearly he is far from a democrat.

After those internal conflict, Putin succeeded Yeltsin, and re-announced Russian nationalist agenda, this time luck stood with Putin, Russia was tired, opposition parties weakening each other, etc. Putin finished Yeltsin's job, consolidate ruling party's power, left minimum freedom to Russians.

After that, Putin declared that Yeltsin is a failure, a bum, and his "democratic" rule is not suitable for Russia. Quite like Khrushchev, who was a devoted follower of Stalin when Stalin was incumbent, yet denounce Stalin as a murderous dictator in 1956.
 
I'm not asking why Russians don't like the policies of the west directed against it. I'm asking why they don't miss having a better operating system of a free and open society at home?
Nobody think we have a perfect system. But right now we have no alternatives. The only significant opposing political party is communists. Liberal parties are either discredit themselves during 90s, or sponsored by West, which does not promise anything good to us. As for people attitude to Putin's internal policy - it's not as good as to foreign policy, which is indeed mostly supported by people.
From what I'm getting now is 1) people are unhappy with the Yeltsin years (as if that was the only alternative) and 2) people are unhappy with the treatment of Russia by the west (fair enough, but beside the point re what Russians want Russia to be like).
People are not happy with Yeltsin years. People have feeling that country is in very unstable condition and may break down further, with active participation of external forces (not only Western, but for example Islamic influence in Chechnya). People understand that West doesn't want restoration of Russia as powerful competitor and will do whatever required to prevent it.

I'm not sure I understood you, do you want me to describe what Russians want Russia to be like?

1. Since then, any authoritarian is good? Because time was harsh? Time was no less harsh in France and west Germany after WWII, yet they don't go that way.
We were talking about hundreds of thousands victims. I said that it is incorrect to compare first half of XX century with present time. We don't want revolutions, it's enough for us already.

2. There's no beggars and homeless people in communism-- they're all detained in camps. We got about millions of people who commit petty crimes in these labor re-education camp, indefinitely. That's how authoritarianism works, they're not political prisoners, but it is better for the authority to keep those "low-level scums" in line.
Do I need to repeat hundred times, that people's life became dramatically worse after collapse of the USSR?

3. Russians didn't sell their freedom. Little freedom was granted to Russian citizens, during Gorbachev and Yeltsin's time.

Perestroika and Glasnost were Gorbachev's propaganda tools both to fight against old school cadres and rising dissidents. (You know that Sakharov protested Gorbachev as sham freedom promoter) Yet it made military leaders nervous and couped him. After the coup, Yeltsin (if Gorbachev was considered social democratic, Yeltsin would be a right-wing nationalist) took power and tried his best to purge the left opposition and right wing liberals.

It was hard for Yeltsin to consolidate power from various oppositions covering every spectrum--old communists, liberals, ethnic minority nationalists, the economy came to a shock just like every former communist country. Yeltsin used iron fist to dissolve the Dumas in 1993--clearly he is far from a democrat.

After those internal conflict, Putin succeeded Yeltsin, and re-announced Russian nationalist agenda, this time luck stood with Putin, Russia was tired, opposition parties weakening each other, etc. Putin finished Yeltsin's job, consolidate ruling party's power, left minimum freedom to Russians.

After that, Putin declared that Yeltsin is a failure, a bum, and his "democratic" rule is not suitable for Russia. Quite like Khrushchev, who was a devoted follower of Stalin when Stalin was incumbent, yet denounce Stalin as a murderous dictator in 1956.

Thank you for the lection, now I understand what was happening behind my window.
 
Talk about beating a dead horse. It is a fait accompli that Russia is not a democratic state. Move on guys.
 
Nobody think we have a perfect system. But right now we have no alternatives. The only significant opposing political party is communists. Liberal parties are either discredit themselves during 90s, or sponsored by West, which does not promise anything good to us. As for people attitude to Putin's internal policy - it's not as good as to foreign policy, which is indeed mostly supported by people.

People are not happy with Yeltsin years. People have feeling that country is in very unstable condition and may break down further, with active participation of external forces (not only Western, but for example Islamic influence in Chechnya). People understand that West doesn't want restoration of Russia as powerful competitor and will do whatever required to prevent it.

I'm not sure I understood you, do you want me to describe what Russians want Russia to be like?


We were talking about hundreds of thousands victims. I said that it is incorrect to compare first half of XX century with present time. We don't want revolutions, it's enough for us already.


Do I need to repeat hundred times, that people's life became dramatically worse after collapse of the USSR?



Thank you for the lection, now I understand what was happening behind my window.

Said a Russian who left his country for a better life, arguing that his country is better.
 
Said a Russian who left his country for a better life, arguing that his country is better.

You know what have I done in my life and why. You know everything about life in my country for last 30 years. I'm afraid you. :)

No offence, but it's clear from your posts that you don't understand the problem was much more complex than simply moving from totalitarism to democracy. You are not consider economical, political and geopolitical aspects, which are very important.
 
You know what have I done in my life and why. You know everything about life in my country for last 30 years. I'm afraid you. :)

No offence, but it's clear from your posts that you don't understand the problem was much more complex than simply moving from totalitarism to democracy. You are not consider economical, political and geopolitical aspects, which are very important.

Well, I live in a similar country with some similar historical background, both are inherently large country with ambitions, heavily nationalistic, proud of its heritage, holding some pan-something ism etc.

But the problem lies there: why should I take this as my burden? The government did all these things, good or bad; why should I do something to help it?

Edit: there's a point I agree with you, that there's no viable alternative right now.
 
Well, I live in a similar country with some similar historical background, both are inherently large country with ambitions, heavily nationalistic, proud of its heritage, holding some pan-something ism etc.

But the problem lies there: why should I take this as my burden? The government did all these things, good or bad; why should I do something to help it?

Edit: there's a point I agree with you, that there's no viable alternative right now.

Don't take it as a burden. Be patriotic and proud of your national heritage. Don't be nationalist - I don't think this is official policy of China (you are from China, right?)
Your government may be not ideal, but before trying to change anything, take Russia as example of victim of improper democratization, and don't repeat our mistakes.
 
I'm not sure I would prefer to live in India or Brazil than in modern China. And if consider period of 1970-1985, I certainly would prefer to live in the USSR than in India or Brazil.

Are you mad?

There was never any Gulag over here, that's a biggie. Better job opportunities too. Quite some soviets citizens fled to Brazil; I don't think any brazilian ever emmigrated to the USSR. The USSR was a nightmare, Brazil is just bad.
 
Are you mad?

There was never any Gulag over here, that's a biggie. Better job opportunities too. Quite some soviets citizens fled to Brazil; I don't think any brazilian ever emmigrated to the USSR. The USSR was a nightmare, Brazil is just bad.

Homicide ratio per 100000:
Brazil (2006) - 25.6
Russia (2006) - 16.5
China (2004) - 2-5
USSR (1986) - 4.1

GDP per capita:
Brazil (1989) - 2500$
USSR (1989) - 9211$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/brazil/brazil_economy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Gulag in 1970? Read some history ABC book.
 
Homicide ratio per 100000:
Brazil (2006) - 25.6
Russia (2006) - 16.5
China (2004) - 2-5
USSR (1986) - 4.1

GDP per capita:
Brazil (1989) - 2500$
USSR (1989) - 9211$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/brazil/brazil_economy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

Gulag in 1970? Read some history ABC book.

Well, I was not talking specifically about 1970, and neither were you considering the numbers you brought up. For instance, in 1970 the murder rate in Brazil was pretty "normal", things only got out of hand in the second half of the 80's. Plus the brazilian GDP per capita in the mid 70's was probably superior to that of the 1989. Plus, that's nominal GDP per capita what is irrelevant when it comes to quality of life in a country such as 1989 Brazil. PPP GDP per capita was likely at least 2 times as much, probably 3.

So it's kind of odd that you are giving me crap about mentioning something of the 30's and 40's in a discussion about 1970, while you bring up numbers from 1989 and 2006, neither of which are 1970 (I suppose I should tell you to read some basic mathematics. 1970 <> 2006, you will soon realise).

Furthermore, in 1970 there was very much a considerable number of prisioners of conscience in that hellhole called USSR, to an extent that Brazil never met in its whole existence, even in the darkest moments. You had a mad, genocidal and warmongering regime, we had a mildly corrupt junta that killed some 200 people in a 20 years period (there were many days in soviet history when more than 200 people were executed).

Additionally, my point remains. Throughout its existence, including the 70's and 80's, many soviets and eastern europeans seeked refuge here. I met a handful. Who seeked refuge in the USSR?

Finally, some perspective about Putin. If he is bringing back the "good old days of the USSR", how come Brazil just surpassed Russia in Human Development?
 
One more "enlightener"
You also want to describe me how bad was life in the USSR?

As I said, Brazil is just democratic banana hellhole with huge criminal rate, compared to USSR, China, USA or Canada. If you don't like numbers I gave, find others yourself - I don't want to waste my time.
 
One more "enlightener"
You also want to describe me how bad was life in the USSR?

As I said, Brazil is just democratic banana hellhole with huge criminal rate, compared to USSR, China, USA or Canada. If you don't like numbers I gave, find others yourself - I don't want to waste my time.

Crime rate is quite inaccurately reported, USA has high crime rate too, but no one, even Russian nationalist US haters, would argue that US is inferior.
 
One more "enlightener"
You also want to describe me how bad was life in the USSR?

As I said, Brazil is just democratic banana hellhole with huge criminal rate, compared to USSR, China, USA or Canada. If you don't like numbers I gave, find others yourself - I don't want to waste my time.

I just provided the number that sumarizes the fact that russians live worse than brazilians.

That Brazil is a banana republic craphole is a given - see my location. It is still less bad than the land of czar Putin and his unfree serfs, and has been less bad since 1917.
 
I've been to both Russia and the Czech Republic, and i am certain that living standards in the Czech Republic(former USSR, now democratic) are substantially higher than in modern Russia. Quite honestly the state of Russian infrastructure and housing in Moscow, St.Petersburg and the various cities along the Trans-Siberian(Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk etc.) are incomparable to anywhere else i have ever been.(China, Bulgaria, Costa Rica to name a few)

At the Chinese border we stopped at a little town called Zabaikalsk and wandered around for a couple hours until they switched the axles to fit Chinese rails. The conditions in that town were worse than the very worst slums in Canada. I doubt many people are homeless(temperatures reach below -40 Celsius) but they live in what amounts to concrete boxes, often with no more than 2 rooms. Russians are very fashionable however.

I know this is all anecdotal, but the statements that portray Russia/USSR as granting a decent living for the majority of her citizens are unsubstantiated. That and i wanted to show that there are westerners that do have an experience of Russia, not just what they have been told. Frankly I have seen more of Russia than most Russians have.

When you look at Russia Geographically; with its multitude of resources, trade opportunities, manufacturing base; i cannot fathom how it has been so mismanaged.
 
I just provided the number that sumarizes the fact that russians live worse than brazilians.

That Brazil is a banana republic craphole is a given - see my location. It is still less bad than the land of czar Putin and his unfree serfs, and has been less bad since 1917.
Compare anything you want. USSR 1970-1980 and Brazil the same period.
Life expectancy, GDP per capita, crime rate, education level.
What else? Child mortality?

Just look at numbers. Come back with GULAG and Ivan the Terrible. :)
 
I've been to both Russia and the Czech Republic, and i am certain that living standards in the Czech Republic(former USSR, now democratic) are substantially higher than in modern Russia. Quite honestly the state of Russian infrastructure and housing in Moscow, St.Petersburg and the various cities along the Trans-Siberian(Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk etc.) are incomparable to anywhere else i have ever been.(China, Bulgaria, Costa Rica to name a few)

At the Chinese border we stopped at a little town called Zabaikalsk and wandered around for a couple hours until they switched the axles to fit Chinese rails. The conditions in that town were worse than the very worst slums in Canada. I doubt many people are homeless(temperatures reach below -40 Celsius) but they live in what amounts to concrete boxes, often with no more than 2 rooms. Russians are very fashionable however.

I know this is all anecdotal, but the statements that portray Russia/USSR as granting a decent living for the majority of her citizens are unsubstantiated. That and i wanted to show that there are westerners that do have an experience of Russia, not just what they have been told. Frankly I have seen more of Russia than most Russians have.

When you look at Russia Geographically; with its multitude of resources, trade opportunities, manufacturing base; i cannot fathom how it has been so mismanaged.

1. Czech republic has never been part of USSR
2. For modern Russia I've already told here - most of regions have awful living standards. Much worse than 25-30 years before.
 
Compare anything you want. USSR 1970-1980 and Brazil the same period.
Life expectancy, GDP per capita, crime rate, education level.
What else? Child mortality?

Just look at numbers. Come back with GULAG and Ivan the Terrible. :)

GDP per capita is quite difficult to calculate in a socialist country, adjusted to PPP. And I have not seen the figure for 1970 Brazil, I don't think that properly adjusted it would be worse than that of Soviet Russia.

And how about this figure: number of political prisioners?

See, over here we value the fact individuals are not and were not the property of state and could not be treated as such. And we would not sell ourselves for bread or an education system that teaches everyone to read but forbids people from reading what they want. :)
 
Top Bottom