|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Dec 6, 2017 15:08:04 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 15:21:51 GMT
Plan A - imprison all political opponents Plan B - imprison all political opponents and falsify the results Plan C - don't hold election, imprison all political opponents and declare yourself the popularly "elected" president
|
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on Dec 6, 2017 16:50:49 GMT
Job for life?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,441
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 6, 2017 18:20:23 GMT
Plan A - imprison all political opponents Plan B - imprison all political opponents and falsify the results Plan C - don't hold election, imprison all political opponents and declare yourself the popularly "elected" president
Sad thing is that he doesn't have to do any of these things to win. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 18:56:00 GMT
Plan A - imprison all political opponents Plan B - imprison all political opponents and falsify the results Plan C - don't hold election, imprison all political opponents and declare yourself the popularly "elected" president
Sad thing is that he doesn't have to do any of these things to win. True. most ordinary Russians are either too complacent or brainwashed to care. A salutary tale for those of us who value true democratic values and how easy it is to loose those freedoms. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Dec 6, 2017 19:37:27 GMT
Well, that's our fault to an extent. Whilst we supported actual democrats (and weirdoes) in most of the Eastern Bloc,in Russia we decided to support slightly different totalitarian types like Solzhenitsyn.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,441
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 6, 2017 19:51:41 GMT
Well, that's our fault to an extent. Whilst we supported actual democrats (and weirdoes) in most of the Eastern Bloc,in Russia we decided to support slightly different totalitarian types like Solzhenitsyn. True. But the Russians did have a go with a democratic leader. Unfortunately it was Boris Yeltsin, who was an incompetent alcoholic. Since then Russians have decided they would prefer the traditional nationalist leader. A friend of mine who lived there for a year said that actually, people could vote for someone else if they wanted to, but most of them actually prefer Putin. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 19:58:37 GMT
Well, that's our fault to an extent. Whilst we supported actual democrats (and weirdoes) in most of the Eastern Bloc,in Russia we decided to support slightly different totalitarian types like Solzhenitsyn. True. But the Russians did have a go with a democratic leader. Unfortunately it was Boris Yeltsin, who was an incompetent alcoholic. Since then Russians have decided they would prefer the traditional nationalist leader. A friend of mine who lived there for a year said that actually, people could vote for someone else if they wanted to, but most of them actually prefer Putin. Russian Orthodox Church at least partly to blame for this. inward looking, socially intolerant and living in a different era most of the time. I suppose as a westerner they would say that is typical and that they are following traditional Russian values, yet as the Russian revolution showed in 1917 this need not always be the case. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,690 
|
Post by Jack on Dec 6, 2017 20:03:23 GMT
Well, that's our fault to an extent. Whilst we supported actual democrats (and weirdoes) in most of the Eastern Bloc,in Russia we decided to support slightly different totalitarian types like Solzhenitsyn. True. But the Russians did have a go with a democratic leader. Unfortunately it was Boris Yeltsin, who was an incompetent alcoholic. Since then Russians have decided they would prefer the traditional nationalist leader. A friend of mine who lived there for a year said that actually, people could vote for someone else if they wanted to, but most of them actually prefer Putin. Weren't Putin's approval ratings 80-odd percent last year? Russia is the only place where he's actually popular, which is convenient for him. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,825
Member is Online
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Dec 6, 2017 20:26:45 GMT
Also indirectly - when Russians are asked on their preferred government - they tend to respond roughly:
10-15% Communism
10-15% NationalSocialism
05-10% LiberalDemocracy
the rest: status quo
Fraud isn't really needed under such circumstances.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,441
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 6, 2017 20:32:12 GMT
Also indirectly - when Russians are asked on their preferred government - they tend to respond roughly: 10-15% Communism 10-15% NationalSocialism 05-10% LiberalDemocracy the rest: status quo Fraud isn't really needed under such circumstances. Thats exactly the point I was making. Russians tried democracy under the vodka-soaked ineptitude of Yeltsin, and have decided they would rather stick with what they know. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 6, 2017 20:48:40 GMT
Massive generalisation here, but Russian history is full of (a) weak governments/leaders leading to civil war with associated foreign invasion and (b) authoritarian governments/leaders governments which produced stable government and were feared by neighbouring countries. The latter is the better option; so not only is authoritarianism not suspect, toleration of dissent starts to look worryingly like option (a) It would take a competent and strong democratic government to win people over to genuine democracy IMO.
(OK Yeltsin didn't produce civil war and invasion, but he did preside over economic chaos, robber barons, organised crime and weakness in foreign affairs. If Putin is Stalin-lite, Yeltsin was False Dmitri-lite )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 20:53:12 GMT
Massive generalisation here, but Russian history is full of (a) weak governments/leaders leading to civil war with associated foreign invasion and (b) authoritarian governments/leaders governments which produced stable government and were feared by neighbouring countries. The latter is the better option; so not only is authoritarianism not suspect, toleration of dissent starts to look worryingly like option (a) It would take a competent and strong democratic government to win people over to genuine democracy IMO. (OK Yeltsin didn't produce civil war and invasion, but he did preside over economic chaos, robber barons, organised crime and weakness in foreign affairs. If Putin is Stalin-lite, Yeltsin was False Dmitri-lite ) re a) So Stalin was a weak leader, hence the Nazi invasion in 1941? and Ivan the Terrible was a weak leader which is why his reign was followed by a "time of troubles" and the autocracy of Nicholas Ii was a weak government because it led to the Russian Revolution? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 6, 2017 21:26:39 GMT
Massive generalisation here, but Russian history is full of (a) weak governments/leaders leading to civil war with associated foreign invasion and (b) authoritarian governments/leaders governments which produced stable government and were feared by neighbouring countries. The latter is the better option; so not only is authoritarianism not suspect, toleration of dissent starts to look worryingly like option (a) It would take a competent and strong democratic government to win people over to genuine democracy IMO. (OK Yeltsin didn't produce civil war and invasion, but he did preside over economic chaos, robber barons, organised crime and weakness in foreign affairs. If Putin is Stalin-lite, Yeltsin was False Dmitri-lite ) re a) So Stalin was a weak leader, hence the Nazi invasion in 1941? and Ivan the Terrible was a weak leader which is why his reign was followed by a "time of troubles" and the autocracy of Nicholas Ii was a weak government because it led to the Russian Revolution? (a) No because he repelled the invasion (and went on to occupy most of Eastern Europe.) (b) No because there was no Time of Troubles in his reign, which was marked by expansion at the expense of the Tatars (same people as the Mongols who had once oppressed Russia). The Time of Troubles came when Ivan the Terrible stopped ruling. (c) Rationally yes, defeated by Japan in 1905 and then by Germany, both times leading to revolution; though generally Russians seem to credit his autocracy with strong government (i.e. Tsarist Russia's status as a Great Power) - the weak government they'd pick on would be the Provisional Government. (NB I'm sure one could argue with the accuracy or validity of this version of Russian history but the point is that I think this is what your average Russian thinks is Russian history) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 21:43:12 GMT
re a) So Stalin was a weak leader, hence the Nazi invasion in 1941? and Ivan the Terrible was a weak leader which is why his reign was followed by a "time of troubles" and the autocracy of Nicholas Ii was a weak government because it led to the Russian Revolution? (a) No because he repelled the invasion (and went on to occupy most of Eastern Europe.) (b) No because there was no Time of Troubles in his reign, which was marked by expansion at the expense of the Tatars (same people as the Mongols who had once oppressed Russia). The Time of Troubles came when Ivan the Terrible stopped ruling. (c) Rationally yes, defeated by Japan in 1905 and then by Germany, both times leading to revolution; though generally Russians seem to credit his autocracy with strong government (i.e. Tsarist Russia's status as a Great Power) - the weak government they'd pick on would be the Provisional Government. (NB I'm sure one could argue with the accuracy or validity of this version of Russian history but the point is that I think this is what your average Russian thinks is Russian history) re a) Yes but in a sense he caused it by rubbing out his best generals in show trials and refusing to believe that nice Mr Hitler would stoop to invading... b) Yes but evidently his control was not sufficient for his successor to prevent the implosion of the state in 1598 c) Yes I don't really understand that nor the Orthodox determination to canonise him
Essentially its "Great Russian Chauvinsm" on the rise again....
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 7, 2017 8:20:26 GMT
Nicholas' was weak, there isn't much doubt on that.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 7, 2017 10:01:45 GMT
And like many weak rulers he indulged in pointless acts of brutality, which helped ensure the regime's ultimate demise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 18:04:07 GMT
Veteran Communist leader and perennial presidential candidate Gennady Zyuganov has decided not to run again. Instead the CPRF have nominated former sovkhoz leader Pavel Grudinin after all other candidates either withdrew "voluntarily" or were blocked by the leadership.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 20:46:20 GMT
|
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,226
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Mar 15, 2018 2:51:26 GMT
|
|
