Russia is teh democratcy!1!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Precisely. In a strange way, a regime that doesn't need violence to create consensus is more totalitarian than one which does.

except theres no consensus here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Precisely. In a strange way, a regime that doesn't need violence to create consensus is more totalitarian than one which does.

[Pekka]

Oncle Boris, are you trying to say what you say on purpose, or are you just looking for debate challenge?

Well anyway. It still is a group, not the country, so there is a distinction still to be made.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course enemies of Bush dont typically end up dead in mysterious circumstances

Are there not stories of Clinton's enemies dying in mysterious circumstances?

[Fake Boris]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

What's so great about America is that you don't even need to shoot dissidents

We dont, cause we let them speak their piece. Our media are diverse, and its hard to pick up a newspaper that doesnt have a criticism of Bush in it.

Not always. When it really mattered, you suppressed communists in blood. As far as a certain consensus is held, it's more socially 'productive' to let people speak and have the country run by two wings of similar parties.

Don't worry, my friend. If ever 40% of American workers take the streets, block shops & co, the National Guard will be on duty.

He only went after billionaires who opposed him. Very effective.

And why did they oppose him ?

Good to know where you stand.

I had thought this kind of observation should be obvious, now that we've seen what happened to Iraq.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


except theres no consensus here.

Do you even realize how large of a consensus that is when 80, 90% or more of a population agrees that they should rely on public institutions to instill political change and refrain from political violence ?

That's the kind of consensus Hobbes, for instance, dreamt of in the Leviathan...

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
As far as a certain consensus is held, it's more socially 'productive' to let people speak and have the country run by two wings of similar parties.

And this is not totalitarian. You'd have to prove that the "consensus" is somehow imposed on society.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro


And this is not totalitarian. You'd have to prove that the "consensus" is somehow imposed on society.

If a consensus is imposed, then it's obviously not a consensus.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Are there not stories of Clinton's enemies dying in mysterious circumstances?

no, one of his aides, Vince Foster commited suicide. A few extremist people tried to make that into a big deal.

nothing like the string of deaths involving Russian dissidents.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


If a consensus is imposed, then it's obviously not a consensus.

Therefore "consensus".

However you call it, you can very well force people to agree, that's what totalitarian systems do or at at least attempt.

Otoh I still don't understand what the totalitarian element is where they "let people speak" (if that means they don't force everyone to agree).

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Not always. When it really mattered, you suppressed communists in blood.

Referring to 1919? even during McCarthyism communists faced loss of jobs and blacklisting, not blood.

As far as a certain consensus is held, it's more socially 'productive' to let people speak and have the country run by two wings of similar parties.

Sure theres widespread consensus on broad principles in the US as in many societies,for a variety of historical reasons. But within that consensus there is opposition to the power of the president in office. Widespread and vocal, and lately even dominant.

In Russia, the consensus is far narrower. Even to oppose Putin personally is to be a traitor. That is what troubled some of us about the pamphlet, and that is what is not comparable to the US or other western democracies, or for that matter, to Russia under Yeltsin.

Now you may well believe that given that in other societies there is broad consensus on the shape of society, competition between individuals and political parties is meaningless. If you had said that earlier youd have saved us all alot of typing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Do you even realize how large of a consensus that is when 80, 90% or more of a population agrees that they should rely on public institutions to instill political change and refrain from political violence ?

That's the kind of consensus Hobbes, for instance, dreamt of in the Leviathan...

wow, so the fact that 80 to 90% of the population accepts the basic ground rules of liberal society, proves that our society is fundamentally illiberal, as illiberal as one where deference to the leaders in power is enforced by violence.

Just wow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

I had thought this kind of observation should be obvious, now that we've seen what happened to Iraq.

Do you really think Russia is similar to Iraq, in terms of ethnic divisions, literacy and urbanization levels, and other indicators of success for democratization?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Don't worry, my friend. If ever 40% of American workers take the streets, block shops & co, the National Guard will be on duty.

As well they should be. How is this relevant?

He only went after billionaires who opposed him. Very effective.

And why did they oppose him ?

It doesnt matter, the point is he eliminated any discourse that disagreed with him, and the corruption was a pretext.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Even to oppose Putin personally is to be a traitor. That is what troubled some of us about the pamphlet, and that is what is not comparable to the US or other western democracies

How much of that word has to do with the meaning you, coming from the American political environment, attach to it, and how much has to do with its meaning in the Russian political lexicon, is unclear. Every country has its own buzzwords and political jargon; the word "traitor" in Russia may well be equivalent to the American "why do you hate freedom?"