Russia is teh democratcy!1!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

fakeboris proving the superiority of the filosopherical mind

-Arrian

[Arrian]

the word "traitor" in Russia may well be equivalent to the American "why do you hate freedom?"

And the recent phase we went through with the use of that ridiculous phrase (wdyhf?) is an embarrassment. edit: or rather the various political comments that were the basis for the mocking why do you hate freedom/america?

Many railed against it.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
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?"

I haven't seen that last used by anyone but satirical leftists. (Which of course makes the satire a bit questionable.)

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro


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.

Bingo.

When we talk about totalitarian regimes, we usually refer to regimes that attempted to create a 'totality', but failed. It's an interesting side-effect of totalitarianism : its succesfull incarnations obviously won't name themselves as such, because ultimately they're opaque to the people who are part of it.

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).

Well, if people can speak and not threaten the integrity of the Sovereign, then the Sovereign is very powerful...

[Kuciwalker]

When we talk about totalitarian regimes, we usually refer to regimes that attempted to create a 'totality', but failed. It's an interesting side-effect of totalitarianism : its succesfull incarnations obviously won't name themselves as such, because ultimately they're opaque to the people who are part of it.

By implication, you're basically engaging in the prosecutor's fallacy.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I think OB is arguing in support of the 2nd Amendment.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I haven't seen that last used by anyone but satirical leftists. (Which of course makes the satire a bit questionable.)

Or "You don't support the troops" or whatever.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


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?"

a. I doubt that. Look at who they give as examples of traitors. Vlasov. He would be considered a traitor here too, with all the negative connotations. If they didnt mean something real serious, they woulnd have mentioned Vlasov.

b. if a mainstream political group here said "obama hates freedom" it would be a big deal, and someone would post it (probably Oerdin, or Odin, or somebody) It would be just as legitimate post it as Saras post is.

How mainstream this group is, Im not sure.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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?

Definitely. There is a very large number of ethnic groups in Russia, and your original ethnicity is written on your passport. There is even an intra-national passport that limits movement between provinces, which is an heritage of the multi-ethnicity of the Soviet empire.

As for infrastructure, I'm not precisely certain which country had the best one. IIUC Iraq was doing decently before the war against Iran. In any case, if you go to Russia or any former Soviet Republic, you can easily see that the infrastructure there is deficient by Western standards : no highways, abysmally inefficient rail network, unpaved roads, etc.

A quick look at Russia's history shows that it has no real history of parliamentarism, that the feudal system was only abolished in the end of the 19th century, etc...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Or "You don't support the troops" or whatever.

Used to exagerate the impact of a specific policy "you want old people to live in poverty" would be the centre left equivalent.


Now if someone said of Obama "you dont support the troops" and put that in a pamphlet together with pics of Benedict Arnold, Tokyo Rose, and Jose Padilla, now that would be something.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Definitely. There is a very large number of ethnic groups in Russia, and your original ethnicity is written on your passport. There is even an intra-national passport that limits movement between provinces, which is an heritage of the multi-ethnicity of the Soviet empire.

As for infrastructure, I'm not precisely certain which country had the best one. IIUC Iraq was doing decently before the war against Iran. In any case, if you go to Russia or any former Soviet Republic, you can easily see that the infrastructure there is deficient by Western standards : no highways, abysmally inefficient rail network, unpaved roads, etc.

A quick look at Russia's history shows that it has no real history of parliamentarism, that the feudal system was only abolished in the end of the 19th century, etc...

1. Ethnic Russians are the overwhelming majority of the population of Russia, like 70% or more, I think. In striking contrast to Iraq, where Sunni Arabs, the traditional ruling group, are less than 25%
2. Whats relevant is Iraqs situation in 2003. By which time their infrastructure and entire economy was on the rocks.

Currently Russias GDP per capita is about $10,000 i believe, higher than Iraqs ever was.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Bingo.

When we talk about totalitarian regimes, we usually refer to regimes that attempted to create a 'totality', but failed. It's an interesting side-effect of totalitarianism : its succesfull incarnations obviously won't name themselves as such, because ultimately they're opaque to the people who are part of it.

Yes, they attempt it, but you can't have totality - it's a goal, a tendency, but it has never been reached in praxis. The systems we call totalitarian weren't "total" in the technical sense, since there always was some dissent, some resistance left. 'Totality' means that basically every aspect of your life, incl. your way of thinking is brought under control (or again at least that this is the goal) by whatever means.

However, to speak of a totalitarian system makes only sense when there is in fact a serious attempt to establish that kind of 'totality'. A broad consensus about something isn't the same, since it may just be the result of wide acceptance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris A quick look at Russia's history shows that it has no real history of parliamentarism, that the feudal system was only abolished in the end of the 19th century, etc...

A very quick look, as Russia had a Duma from 1905 to 1914, IIRC.

Serfdom was only abolished in the mid 19th century. By that measure, Austria shouldnt be ready for democracy yet, either.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

When we talk about totalitarian regimes, we usually refer to regimes that attempted to create a 'totality', but failed. It's an interesting side-effect of totalitarianism : its succesfull incarnations obviously won't name themselves as such, because ultimately they're opaque to the people who are part of it.

By implication, you're basically engaging in the prosecutor's fallacy.

That's what you would want me to. However, it's not like there aren't other factors that can combine into this observation (globalization being a prime example).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
b. if a mainstream political group here said "obama hates freedom" it would be a big deal, and someone would post it (probably Oerdin, or Odin, or somebody) It would be just as legitimate post it as Saras post is.

It would be a big deal, and worthy of mocking, but would involve a fair bit of a stretch to suggest that America isn't a democracy because of it.

And we know how Oerdin's posts are usually received.