Russia is teh democratcy!1!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Other then three people who I am continually assualted by my posts get a pretty good response.

That's who I meant. Though I think there are more than three.

But my point was that if you were to post about some pro-Bush group calling democrats traitors under the title "Death of democracy" or something, it wouldn't be very well received.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


of course there are many factors. Which is why I didnt think you could make your assertion about the prospects of Russian democracy from the case of Iraq.

What you did was to accuse me of being a partisan of tyranny (you said: "good to know where you stand").
My response wasn't that Russia = Iraq, but rather that you shouldn't expect a country to behave like a liberal democracy does when the conditions aren't met.

[Saras]

Re: Saras

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Uh, according to your link it's a leaflet distributed by pro-Putin organizations.

This doesn't tell anything about free speech. Putin's actions may, though, but I expect you to be hysterical about anything Russian, so nothing new here.

Dude, it's a democracy, and has free speech, so leaflets like these can be freely distributed, unlike in authoritarian coutries. Simple!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What you did was to accuse me of being a partisan of tyranny (you said: "good to know where you stand").
My response wasn't that Russia = Iraq, but rather that you shouldn't expect a country to behave like a liberal democracy does when the conditions aren't met.

this "The sad truth is that a country used to authoritarianism needs authority... "

is not the same as "you shouldn't expect a country to behave like a liberal democracy does when the conditions aren't met. "

Whether or not one thinks that the US invasion was warranted, I dont think it would be right to say that what Iraq needs now is authoritarianism (though they may get that) A fortiori for Russia, where the conditions for democracy are SOMEWHAT better.

Now maybe when you said needs authority, you did not mean "needs authoritarianism". I too agree that societies emerging from authoritarianism need authority, as do all societies to some degree. But that should be democratic authority, if at all possible, and it seems pretty clear to me that Putin COULD have pursued a more democratic direction than he has without endangering the strengthening of law.

And it seemed to me you were suggesting, that even if he could have, his current course is for the best. IE you were calling, not for democratic authority, but for authoritarianism.

[Fake Boris]

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.

I said 'totalitarian' (and I explained myself in my posts to BeBro). In the way I put it, liberal democracy certainly doesn't preclude totalitarianism.

Even to oppose Putin personally is to be a traitor.

The implied idea here is that to oppose Putin is to oppose his platform... They were very clear in their references (fascist collaborators, Yeltsinian oligarchs, imperialists extending their domain in the Russian empire, etc).

[Cort Haus]

Ultimately the pace, nature and extent of Russian democracy is something for Russians to develop without external interference. Seeing as Yeltsin was, AIUI, seen as a bit of a western stooge who gave the country's wealth to a handful of Oligarchs, it's not surprising that Putin, who positions himself against such policies, is popular.

It may even be in the West's interest for there to be a strongman in charge, as a weak government and/or breakup of the country could feasibly yield far more instability and danger.

[lord of the mark]

"When we talk about totalitarian regimes, we usually refer to regimes that attempted to create a 'totality', but failed."

No, thats not really what the word means.


" 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."

Name some.

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

The sovereign in a properly functioning democracy is of course quite powerful since it is the majority of the people. De Toqueville pointed that out long ago. Totalitarianism != being a powerful force.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Ultimately the pace, nature and extent of Russian democracy is something for Russians to develop without external interference. Seeing as Yeltsin was, AIUI, seen as a bit of a western stooge who gave the country's wealth to a handful of Oligarchs, it's not surprising that Putin, who positions himself against such policies, is popular.

It may even be in the West's interest for there to be a strongman in charge, as a weak government and/or breakup of the country could feasibly yield far more instability and danger.

last paragraph first

I have a hard time seeing Russia break up.

I am dubious that the Presidential dictatorship (the direction Russia seems to be headed) will in fact be more stable in the longer run, esp when the price of hydrocarbons falls, and/or when one of Putins successors prover personally less competent than Putin.

First paragraph - no one here is proposing that the West interfere in ANY way with Russias internal development. I suspect that Saras does think that we should be perhaps a tad more wary of Russia, though.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Diplomatically, they're your *****es, and yes, they did go to Iraq. There's more to control than tanks.

I'll be USA's diplo***** anyday over Ruskie slave labourer

[Saras]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Saras is little more than Serb's anti-Russian counterpart.

Call me arrogant, but I don't think that's a fair assessment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Saras


I'll be USA's diplo***** anyday over Ruskie slave labourer

Someone give Saras a nickle. I out of nickles.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"When we talk about totalitarian regimes, we usually refer to regimes that attempted to create a 'totality', but failed."

No, thats not really what the word means.

Thanks so much.

" 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."

Name some.

I consider America to be rather totalitarian.

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

The sovereign in a properly functioning democracy is of course quite powerful since it is the majority of the people. De Toqueville pointed that out long ago. Totalitarianism != being a powerful force.

That would be if you adhere to the fallacy of assuming that a failed totalitarianism was effectively totalitarian.

I'm glad you're quoting Tocqueville. I don't know how he is interpreted in America, but he had some interesting things to say on the topic of opacity :

I do not believe that there is, in the civilized world, a country where philosophy is less catered to than in America.
Americans don't have their own philosophical schools, and bother little of those that divide Europe ; they barely know their names.
It is easy to see, however, that almost all citizens of the United States conduct their minds in the same manner, and according to the same rules ; which is to say that they possess, without ever having defined its rules, a certain philosophical method that is common to them all.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris


"Thanks so much."

Glad I could help.


"I consider America to be rather totalitarian."

Im not surprised you do.


"That would be if you adhere to the fallacy of assuming that a failed totalitarianism was effectively totalitarian."

evidently arendt and popper and all the folks who first used the word were wrong.

"I'm glad you're quoting Tocqueville. I don't know how he is interpreted in America, but he had some interesting things to say on the topic of opacity :

I do not believe that there is, in the civilized world, a country where philosophy is less catered to than in America.
Americans don't have their own philosophical schools, and bother little of those that divide Europe ; they barely know their names.
It is easy to see, however, that almost all citizens of the United States conduct their minds in the same manner, and according to the same rules ; which is to say that they possess, without ever having defined its rules, a certain philosophical method that is common to them all.

"

That was a statement about a social fact. As DeT states in that quote "almost all" not all follow the same rules. Im not sure that DeT thought ANYONEs philosophical rules were not socially determined.

As for opacity, Im quite sure that the elite at the time was quite conscious of their philosophical roots in English liberalism and empiricism, and French enlightenment thought. That ordinary people are not conscious of the methods they use, is fairly banal, and I doubt really De Ts point - rather he is contrasting them to ordinary folks in Europe who are less inclined to philisophical method period.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
First paragraph - no one here is proposing that the West interfere in ANY way with Russias internal development. I suspect that Saras does think that we should be perhaps a tad more wary of Russia, though.

Whatever that means.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, I think OB is arguing in support of the 2nd Amendment.

In some way, yes, in another, no.

Free speech is a paradox : on one hand, we assume we need it in order to ensure freedom and safety of individuals. But then a problem arises : free speech is bound to become, through evolution and culture, a term that, in and out of itself, creates its own paradigm of acceptable discourse.

That's where the issue of 'totalitarianism' kicks in. It's still a hot debate in contemporary political philosophy, and that's a reason there's been a renewed interest in Spinoza's works since the '60s (he was one of the first to coin the term in its modern sense).

American sociologists and philosophers, in general, tend to believe that the 'individuality' of a person can be assumed (as in Descartes' 'I think therefore I am), while Europe (again, in general) has adopted a 'cybernetical' stance towards the problem : if you grant free speech, people take it 'as is', and become part of a greater and stronger whole (because they immediately took what they were fed), that is inevitably bound to absorb individuality. That's the paradox of freedom as we see it today.

My quarrel with LOTM is revealing of this rift : most Americans interpret Tocqueville as if he demonstrated that you can be 'powerful' without being totalitarian, while many French philosophers have developed the exact opposite idea.

I have my own opinion on the issue, which should be obvious by now. But debating it further is not necessary in the context of this forum.