How does one reconcile communism and autocracy?

"Russia doesn't need the world system, really. It has enough resources to be more than self-sufficient. Russia will emerge as a model for others to follow."

Exactly. Russia doesn't care about the world outside of its own concerns and that is a problem for me - I am allowed to have that perspective, Putin - yes the US and Europe can be seen as economically and politically imperialist to suit their domestic advantage but at least they attempt to intervene where they can. The Russians are only in Kosovo because they want to keep Serbia in their sphere of control. You could be equally cynical about NATO interventions but at least there are many more examples of them. At least leaders in the West actually want to foster good relations with other countries, Putin just doesn't care - as you freely admit, they can just depend on themselves.

I completely disagree that that is a good model to follow. Isolationist politics don't help anyone - that is why, as you said, China has wanted to embrace the world in the past two decades.

"Things sure do look differently from an American college campus than they do in a country under actual political oppression."

I don't know if this accurately refers to Putin33's situation but as a general statement, great. Armchair socialists/radicals are the worst kind - so out of touch with the brutal realities of authoritarian systems for ordinary people whose rights are curtailed and expression limited. The fact is that armchair critics like Putin33 wouldn't have the freedom of expression they enjoy in the West if they were in countries like Russia or China - anyone who speaks out against the government in a way that is displeasurable is removed all to easily and efficiently. To say that Russia should be upheld as some kind of role model when state-sanctioned murder of journalists such as Anna Politkovskaya take places is ridiculous and quite frankly an insult to the many many oppressed people that have no voice or liberty.

Wait, so the fact that NATO likes to have its hand in everybody else's internal affairs is supposedly an example of their benevolence? The very organization that openly tries to assassination heads of state and slaughters children and maternity wards for sport? Newsflash: the rest of the world doesn't share your rosy colored view of the NATO imperialists. People want to be left alone. People want to be independent. I know that bugs the hell out of you and Kissinger wannabe over here. I do love how Invictus thinks he has a pulse on what "oppression" looks like in other countries, while you look the other way at real political repression in the United States because it doesn't jive with your habitual cheerleading for American exceptionalism.

The only thing "ludicrous" is your facile "analysis" of Russian politics. You, a supposed realist, have absolutely no appreciation for the geopolitical environment Russia is in, or the domestic challenges it faces. You ignore the Beslan attack, even though corrupt regional officials allowed the attackers to get access to the school. You're only a realist when it comes to excusing the abuses of American power. For everybody else you're a Polyannish liberal. You're even stupid enough to compare a random school shooting with an act of terrorism.

"The very organization that openly tries to assassination heads of state and slaughters children and maternity wards for sport?"

That's a gross exaggeration of the actions and purpose of NATO. And as for "People want to be left alone. People want to be independent.", the rebels in Libya asked for help, they pleaded for it.

As for the continual whining about appointing governors, you do realize that in most "democracies" they don't have any semblance of 'federalism'? I don't hear you whining about the "tyranny" in France or Britain because the departments/counties have absolutely zero power whatsoever. I don't hear you whining about the fact that most of these countries don't bother to elect their upper houses of parliament. When our state governors started plotting terrorism and secession, we'd crushed them like the bugs they were.

"You, a supposed realist, have absolutely no appreciation for the geopolitical environment Russia is in, or the domestic challenges it faces. You ignore the Beslan attack, even though corrupt regional officials allowed the attackers to get access to the school. You're only a realist when it comes to excusing the abuses of American power. For everybody else you're a Polyannish liberal. You're even stupid enough to compare a random school shooting with an act of terrorism."


Your assumption that I have "absolutely no appreciation" for the geopolitical reality of Russia is unfounded and impossible for you to say. We haven't discussed that and as I already said, Russia uses its military on its own 'people' in areas such as Chechnya for decades.

As for your insults at my character, I've never one called you stupid Putin33, and am disappointed that you in healthy debate you would seek to put me down like that. I have always enjoyed your comments on the forum and respect your point of view even if I disagree with it.

"the rebels in Libya asked for help, they pleaded for it."

No they didn't. But even if they did, they're a bunch of Al Qaeda supporters. They're the same people killing US troops in Iraq. They're a bunch of racists who target black Africans for lynchings.

http://www.zimbio.com/Libya/articles/7PRl3IlDe70/Libya+rebels+form+council+oppose+foreign+intervention

"You, a supposed realist, have absolutely no appreciation for the geopolitical environment Russia is in, or the domestic challenges it faces. You ignore the Beslan attack, even though corrupt regional officials allowed the attackers to get access to the school. You're only a realist when it comes to excusing the abuses of American power. For everybody else you're a Polyannish liberal. You're even stupid enough to compare a random school shooting with an act of terrorism."


Your assumption that I have "absolutely no appreciation" for the geopolitical reality of Russia is unfounded and impossible for you to say. We haven't discussed that and as I already said, Russia uses its military on its own 'people' in areas such as Chechnya for decades.

As for your insults at my character, I've never one called you stupid Putin33, and am disappointed that you in healthy debate you would seek to put me down like that. I have always enjoyed your comments on the forum and respect your point of view even if I disagree with it.

I was referring to Invictus. Chechens are killing Russians and local people all the time. I'm not surprised you take the terrorists side when it comes to Russia.

You're just being reactionary. I wasn't taking the terrorist's side - it's a complex situation but one that surely isn't helped by repeated military occupations.

It's telling of your argument how you pick the facts you want to highlight but ignore things like the assassination of Kremlin critic Anna Politkovskaya and countless other anti-government critics.

This is a thread about Russia but all you want to do is deflect the attention away from Russia's flaws by constantly bashing America and the West. I think everyone in this thread so far readily admits systems in the West aren't perfect either and that there are problems with systemic corruption that need sorting out but this thread isn't about those problems, it's about Russia.

Your comments get so vitriolic sometimes, which is a shame because when you post considered, rationalised responses on issues, you have a lot to offer.

What evidence is there that Politkovskaya was assassinated by Putin or anybody working for Putin? Putin had everything to lose from the killing and nothing to gain. The assassination was used by NATO to encircle Russia ever more tightly. To assume Putin did this is to assume he is a complete imbecile. She was completely irrelevant. Why the hell would Putin order a hit on his birthday? She was more useful to the Chechens as a 'martyr'. Berezovsky could have easily done this. Chechen rebels have a habit of accusing the Russian government of assassinating people to try and create worldwide opposition to Russian policies. For example, we're expected to believe the Russian government assassinated Paul Klebnikov, even though he was a staunch critic of the terrorist Berezovsky, who still has asylum in the UK. None of you Putin critics ever even bother mentioning the assassination of Vlad Listyev, who was definitely assassinated by an oligarch, and who likely Berezovsky, and none of you would dare tie that killing to Yeltsin. And none of you bother to mention the large number of other critics of Putin's government who were much more well known and who weren't touched.

You called me an armchair radical without provocation and did your best to pile on Invictus's usual array of insults and then expect me to be all sunshine and lollipops.

"As for the continual whining about appointing governors, you do realize that in most "democracies" they don't have any semblance of 'federalism'? I don't hear you whining about the "tyranny" in France or Britain because the departments/counties have absolutely zero power whatsoever. I don't hear you whining about the fact that most of these countries don't bother to elect their upper houses of parliament. When our state governors started plotting terrorism and secession, we'd crushed them like the bugs they were."

I'm not sure why I bothered even half expecting anything else from you.

The fact that other democracies don't have federalism has nothing to do with Putin abusing federalism and democracy in Russia. The fact is that the leaders of sub-national units with a large degree of legal autonomy are now appointed by the Russian president and not the people of that republic or oblast or whatever. How is that democratic?

As for the departments and counties of France and Britain, those units ARE run by elected officials. They are also not very powerful. Having a powerful sub-national government run by an appointed official is much worse since that means that the people of that unit are governed in consequential ways by someone they never voted for and therefore gave consent to be governed by. That's leaving aside the fact that counties and departments are local governments and an entirely different dynamic than the federal subjects of Russia. It would be more like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland having their first ministers appointed, as I said before.

An elected upper house is a totally separate issue from what we're talking about. For the record, though I DO think it's wrong to not have a completely elected legislature. Of course, that's only a really important issue if the upper house had any real power. Something like the House of Lords, while far from ideal, is also completely powerless to defy the will of the lower house in any way. Again I don't like it, but it's impossible for the democraticalyl chosen legislators to not have their way.

This merits a re-quoting.

"When our state governors started plotting terrorism and secession, we'd crushed them like the bugs they were."

Yeah, you're right. Segregationist governors who defied the federal government were put in their place. And rightly so. However, even after all that (hell, even after the Civil War when secession was made a reality) there was never a move at all to permanently change all state governorships in America into elected positions. That's a monstrous abuse of power and is WRONG. People have the right to elect their leaders. Period.

But you can't see even that simple principle. Again, with your history of swallowing even the most absurd North Korean propaganda as gospel truth we shouldn't be surprised.

And as for me not being a realist, a realist can still have a conscience.

A conscience indeed. A conscience that conveniently helps as propaganda for your warmongering and vilifies anybody who gets in the way of American world domination.

"The fact that other democracies don't have federalism has nothing to do with Putin abusing federalism and democracy in Russia. The fact is that the leaders of sub-national units with a large degree of legal autonomy are now appointed by the Russian president and not the people of that republic or oblast or whatever. How is that democratic?"

Direct democracy isn't the single arbiter of wise institution building, Invictus. Especially when the big problem in a country is the total lack of law and authority. You would recognize this if this rant of yours was anything but your usual anti-large state that isn't the United States rant. The system of federalism as it existed before 2004 was completely unworkable. Direct elections of governors only began in 1996. Since then governors used their elections as an excuse to give themselves broad powers and implementing sweeping anti-constitutional legislation. Many of them were tied to the mafia, many of them turned their regional assemblies into rubber stamps, many of them took over the regional media. Russia had no control over the regions, and this lack of control turned violent with the Chechnyan invasion of Dagestan, among other things. Now the legislators can reject appointments. It's a good compromise. It has worked. Since the reforms the big problem of the regions has dissipated to a large extent. There is some sense of cohesion. Federal laws are enforced.

And Germany has a powerful Bundesrat that isn't directly elected. I await your condemnation of that terrible system. Indeed, in no parliamentary system is the actual executive directly elected. Party electors select the leader of the party that ends up being Prime Minister. Oh the tyranny!

" It would be more like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland having their first ministers appointed, as I said before."

So UK is a sterling democracy now that since 1999, Scotland and Wales have had first ministers elected by their parliaments and Northern Ireland finally was given some autonomy after 2007. Before that it was a "dictatorship", I guess.

Ha. The FSB and the Russian government killed 300 of their own people in the Moscow apartment bombings to start the second chechen war. And while the chechen fighters certainly have the blood of civilians on their hands, the russian government has just as much, if not more. They basically demolished grozny in 2000.

Before that the UK was a totally unitary state. All there was was the Parliament in London. Before Blair's reforms Wales and Scotland were more or less just names on a map, with no more governmental power than "England" has today. If however, it came to pass that the Scottish First Minister was appointed by the British government without being elected by the people then THAT would be tyranny, since the new Scottish government has real powers over the people of Scotland and they have a natural right to choose how they are to be governed through free and fair elections.

As for the Bundesrat, you're right I don't like that. The idea that prime ministers aren't directly elected also bothers me, but that's just how it works in parliamentary systems, and it is completely compatible with democracy.

"Direct democracy isn't the single arbiter of wise institution building, Invictus."

Perhaps you don't know what direct democracy is. That's when the citizens directly participate in passing laws, like in referendums. electing governors is representative democracy.

Stop muddying the waters here, Usefulidiot33. Putin has revoked the ability of the people of the federal subjects of Russia to elect their governors. I have no doubt that there was awful corruption by many of these people and that they abused their democratic mandate. But the answer to that isn't to turn the governors into Kremlin satraps. Mexico is in a similar state of internal unrest, you don't see Calderon demanding the right to appoint governors. There's no excuse for such a curtailment of democracy, and you'd be howling in outrage if anyone but your namesake or some other foreign strongman shouting the correct anti-American shibboleths tried it.

No, I would be very happy if tomorrow, Obama abolished elected governorships and decided they'd be appointed. Federalism hasn't worked in America or anywhere else where it's been tried. It almost always results in civil war or separatism unless it's curtailed enough to be irrelevant. I have no complaint with Germany, which has highly effective institutions.

Your double speak is hilarious. It's not tyranny to have a unitary state, but once they raise expectations and give greater autonomy, to not have direct elections or to have legislators appoint governors instead of the population is tyrannical, even if those direct elections resulted in gangster rule, domestic unrest, and corruption. Brilliant.

You're also exaggerating the extent to which Scotland has any real power over its own affairs. It has some control of what, cultural, agricultural and justice policy. And their autonomy can be rescinded at any time by act of parliament. Scotland is completely dependent on Westminster for the money it uses to implement its policies. That'll change in 2015, I guess, with the income tax.

" Mexico is in a similar state of internal unrest, you don't see Calderon demanding the right to appoint governors."

Mexican states are completely impotent. They have barely any power whatsoever. They have virtually no power to raise their own money. They don't buck the federal government when it comes to implementing laws.

"Perhaps you don't know what direct democracy is. That's when the citizens directly participate in passing laws, like in referendums. electing governors is representative democracy."

Direct elections, you know damn well what I meant. Most democratic systems, most especially the United States historically, have used indirect means of selecting various office holders. You think that's some kind of example of dictatorship when it's a central feature of virtually every democratic government.

"No, I would be very happy if tomorrow, Obama abolished elected governorships and decided they'd be appointed. Federalism hasn't worked in America or anywhere else where it's been tried. It almost always results in civil war or separatism unless it's curtailed enough to be irrelevant."

So... you support the governors of American states not being elected? Bull. I can almost hear how much you would be furiously typing about the injustice of it all when a President Bachman appoints Scott Walker clones in all fifty states.

As for federalism not working, I point you to the examples of Canada, Switzerland, Australia, India, Brazil, and Austria, which (even if you actually believe that federalism is a failure in America and India and is the cause problems in places like Russia) are inarguable successful countries. Seriously, how can you say federalism has failed in Switzerland?

If any significant amount of people in the world thought like you I'd be worried. It's not even just the microwaved Marxism, which is harmless enough after the fall of the Soviet Union. No, it's the il-liberalism (in the classical sense of liberal) that's so troubling and so sad. Thank goodness people like you don't run this country or any free country. Stay on campus, Usefulidiot33. It's the only place people won't think you're a monster.

Putin / Medvedev 3030

Everyone is certain that Putin will be the next President? But why so certain? The president of Russia is elected isn't he? Are there other candidates? Is it actually a democracy?

Elections do not democracy make.

Yeah Spyman, its kinda like the President of Afghanistan was "elected" when we really know Karzai probably lost. Russia will elect who the Kremlin wants it to elect. Its just....Russia has always been like that, and will always continue to be like that.

I mean, going back to the USSR, Stalin wasn't who Lenin wanted to head the communist party and the nation. Not at all. Its just that Russia has a history of strongmen taking power and until that is broken, then it's just same-old, same-old

disclaimer: not meaning to directly compare Russia to Afghanistan. There are many obvious differences between the two, but that was the election fraud that popped in my head. Russia is not that bad.

"Stalin wasn't who Lenin wanted to head the communist party and the nation."

False. I love the fact that rightists lap up Trotskyite fiction.

"Not at all. Its just that Russia has a history of strongmen taking power and until that is broken, then it's just same-old, same-old"

Cultural smear

"Elections do not democracy make."

What a reversal from your earlier position about governors. Incidentally the only election that was self-evidently rigged (but nobody cared) in Russia was the 1996 Yeltsin/Zyuganov one.

"I point you to the examples of Canada, Switzerland, Australia, India, Brazil, and Austria"

It works in Canada? That might be news to the Canadians. What, with Quebec wanting to secede and the western Canadian animosity towards Ontario. Canada is barely a country. Australian federalists complain bitterly about the centralization which has occurred there. Brazil's fiscal decentralization has led to severe financial problems and political scientists have repeatedly condemned Brazilian federalism for undermining Brazil's democratic transition because Brazilian governors are so powerful in controlling the actions of members of parliament that they undermine any attempts at passing policies in the national interest or forming a stable coalition government at the national level. Indian "federalism" is much like Mexico's, in that it exists only on paper. India has repeatedly used its central government to dismiss state governments and impose presidential rule when it does not approve of the state government. They've done this repeatedly in Assam and Nagaland. Yet despite that India's linguistic reorganization of the states has fueled separatist movements in droves. Switzerland I concede works, but they are the exception not the rule. Even you would agree that a country with three or more national communities and very little in the way of cultural cohesion is not a recipe for success in virtually all cases. And incidentally, the surrounding EU countries rather loathe the Confederation's form of government because it has to engage in a maze of agreements and has a dozen different tax regimes for just one tiny country of 7 million.

"I can almost hear how much you would be furiously typing about the injustice of it all when a President Bachman appoints Scott Walker clones in all fifty states."

If we were a true unitary state no Republican would have a chance at winning national office. The fragmentation of the electoral vote in a bunch of segmented winner-take-all districts keeps them relevant.