Russians favour Soviet "Democracy" over Western forms of democracy
65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46361053]The problem is that Ukraine had no national identity to begin with as it was a mashup of territories with different ethnic groups.[/QUOTE]
And a nation was successfully built out of this. Russia also did not exist as a nation until the late 19th century.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46361051]Can you explain this "unique Russian mentality" to me?[/QUOTE]
That would take me a few pages of text, but in short:
Russia was always in between eastern despothies and western monarchies (and later democratic states). These different societies cultivated:
1. A society with a huge amount of non conformists. Nobody accepts any fucking authority besides himself, so nothing ever works.
2. A unique state of government where the people and the government are two parallel worlds. Hence why we say "laws exist to be broken". This is why everyone takes bribes, the corruption grows from that too.
3. A unique state of society where the social ladder and the political ladder are two parallel entities. You can be a rich businessman and be no one in politics and society, not even take part. In USA (for example) a rich businessman always donates money to charity and takes part in the life of country, so the ladders overlap. The government ladder is also parallel to both business and social ladders.
4. A society that is democratic around the low levels and despotic around the high levels. This is how we assimilated both western freedom and eastern despothy. The common folk can vote and have free speech and stuff. But the rich and the influential must obey the rules or be gone. You are either the despot's friend or no money or influence can save you.
[editline]29th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46361011]
If you ask my opinion, I'm personally in favor of a weighted voting system based on education. But dunno how that might work out.[/QUOTE]
I have been thinking about it too. A proper meritocracy should be much better. I even asked [URL="http://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-professor-have-the-same-voting-rights-as-a-street-beggar"]the smart guys[/URL] why don't we have that great thing yet.
The problem with meritocracy is that there is no clear definition of who should have more voting rights. No measuring system. And I don't think one can be invented.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46361106]What[/QUOTE]
There was a "Russian Empire". Different peoples in Russia always spoke different dialects and had different customs and beliefs. They never really saw themselves as "Russian" but more as "Somebody from Polotsk" or "Somebody from Nizhniy Novgorod".
The actual creation of a distinct Russian identity did not take off until well into the 19th century.
It's one of the major reasons why Russia lost WW1. The peoples of Russia did not see the point in fighting a war hundreds of miles away that would never affect them at home, and when the Tsar was removed from power, nobody was willing to fight for his return.
[QUOTE=Deng;46361721]There was a "Russian Empire". Different peoples in Russia always spoke different dialects and had different customs and beliefs. They never really saw themselves as "Russian" but more as "Somebody from Polotsk" or "Somebody from Nizhniy Novgorod".
The actual creation of a distinct Russian identity did not take off until well into the 19th century.
It's one of the major reasons why Russia lost WW1. The peoples of Russia did not see the point in fighting a war hundreds of miles away that would never affect them at home, and when the Tsar was removed from power, nobody was willing to fight for his return.[/QUOTE]
Russia has had a strong national identity even in the days of its founding. The Rus people had pretty strong sense of unity even early into the 1600s.
the russian "tradition" of strong-arming everyone to vote for you
[QUOTE=Bumgall;46361858]Russia has had a strong national identity even in the days of its founding. The Rus people had pretty strong sense of unity even early into the 1600s.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Most peasants didn't even speak the same Russian language or conceive of Russia in terms of a "nation" or "state". Relationships were always of the master-servant one, in which the most important figures were your local lords. People did know of the tsar, but they knew little that was concrete about them, or even cared.
Late into the 19th century, Russia was an Empire ruling over a vast number of nationalities. It would be stupid to suggest that the Russian Empire was a nation. There were many at that time who believed in "Pan-Slavism" where all the Slavs constituted a single nation.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46361742]Like every single other nation
There was a nation of Russians buddy, nationalistic motives and movements rose in 19th century, paralleling with the world. The issue about Ukrainans isn't this; people (I don't, other people) say that Ukrainian identity became defined in late 19th-early 20th century.
There was a Russian identity going back till 12th, maybe as early as 9th century. Rus states, Russian speaking people.[/quote]
The Rus of the 12th century share little in common with the Russians of the 21st. Not even in language or religion, both of which are only tangentially related.
The modern "Russia" and Russian state is an outgrowth of the Muscovite state. We ignore the existence of places such as Novgorod which were other important centres which could constitute their own separate identity, but were eventually assimilated into Moscow.
[quote]People did not see a point in fighting a war because they were extremely war weary from 1905-07 , and workers were already discontent. Peoples of other countries became discontent later, because their initial position wasn't as bad as Russians.
Russia lost WW1 because of military reasons. They tried to fight an unnecessary imperialistic war that they couldn't have possibly won.[/QUOTE]
There was no war weariness from the Russo-Japanese war. In fact, Russia was in a much stronger position, especially as they had started to industrialize in the 1890s under Sergei Witte (one of the most underappreciated Russian statesmen) and had introduced military reforms intended to be completed in 1917. True their army was still miles behind, and true their ability to fight a war was extremely poor, but they managed to hold out for 3 years, despite massive losses.
The real reason for the loss is not militarily, but really because the regime simply lost the last legitimacy it had. The army was still there (and would remain so for many months), but they more or less refused to fight for the tsar any longer. Nobody was willing to die to save the old Russia.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46362374]Thats why they oppressed the poles and genocided circassians right
And there was a quite sizeable white force, with lots of volunteers, in the Russian civil war[/QUOTE]
The whites never really could win the civil war. As soon as one side got strong enough or presented enough of a threat, internal politics and divisions would end up in the way. They had little support from the vast majority of the population (who regarded their former lords very poorly), and the Bolsheviks key advantage lay in the fact they could exploit new situations with ruthless efficiency and managed to keep a large coherent army and infrastructure system together. The Whites kept to an illusion where they thought things would return to the way they had been, or acted as if the revolution was merely an unpleasant interruption to the way things were done. Instead it was a complete dissolution of the old order that they were woefully unprepared to deal with.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46361011]Not mentalities, education.
The word you are looking for is education.
People went and voted for the wrong people. Because they arent politically conscious enough. Happens in Turkey too, we had pretty govts at the times, but now its a shitty govt.
If you ask my opinion, I'm personally in favor of a weighted voting system based on education. But dunno how that might work out.[/QUOTE]
This was tried in the UK for a long time. It was a bad idea.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46367351]Can you explain why? I am curious.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage[/url] (different from suffragettes)
1432 - 1832 only rich men can vote
1832-1918 only educated men (and rich I suppose) can vote (apparently this was only 60% of the population)
1928-1928 all men and some women can vote
1928+ equal rights for sexes with regards to voting
According to that page it happened elsewhere also.
I like the idea in practice but I think the entire population needs to be education rather than restricting input and decision making to those with education. It seems like it could be misused to further stratify society.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46367537]I havent seen education there. The closest is "literacy tests in some states of US."
What I propose is weighing the votes in favor of higher education.[/QUOTE]
The issue is with demographics. Higher education is expensive, middle and upper class are more likely to have higher education. Therefore you are taking power from the poor/lower classes. The upper and middle classes will vote to pass different laws than the lower class. Also people who choose not to get higher education? People who cannot afford higher education? You would be creating disenfranchised second class citizens. Stratification with the privileged getting more privileged and the under-privileged getting less and less power and influence.
It would be a step backwards, for democracy at least...
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46367563]The issue is with demographics. Higher education is expensive, middle and upper class are more likely to have higher education. Therefore you are taking power from the poor/lower classes. The upper and middle classes will vote to pass different laws than the lower class. Also people who choose not to get higher education? People who cannot afford higher education? You would be creating disenfranchised second class citizens. Stratification with the privileged getting more privileged and the under-privileged getting less and less power and influence.
It would be a step backwards, for democracy at least...[/QUOTE]
It's also the exact thing that pretty much destroyed social mobility in Britain at the time so not only would you not be able to vote, but there was pretty much zero chance of you or your kids getting anywhere in life.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46367589]Maybe for UK, but would it be efficient in barring overconservative, overnationalist or overreligious parties in lesser parts of the world, such as, well, Turkey?
The thing is, we can't really determine political consciousness, but since it kinda correlates with education, this can be used until the country fully develops a mindset.
Also, again, education should be free of charge.[/QUOTE]
I see why you might think its a good idea, part of me says there should be some block but a larger part of me says it is a bad idea and has been proven to be so.
If you have a democracy and deny people the right to vote in that democracy then what reason do they have for supporting it? Why should they pay taxes or obey laws? To those people who aren't represented it becomes a "dictatorship" in that they have no say in how their lives are managed.
As for the situation in turkey, I guess things are different there. In the UK stupid/conservative people are generally as educated as the other people.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46367716]They have a say, its just not worth the same.
And they would pay the taxes beause roads/eduation/heathcare/electricity etc.
I don't suggest it will solve evreything. There are stupid educated people here too. It is just they have a less rate. It won't block all idiots, but at least some of them.[/QUOTE]
Rather than blocking the idiots make the idiots smart and stop them being idiots. Denying people the rights offered to others in a society isn't a stable long term solution.
[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;46368113]I don't know, I think our mentality is getting closer and closer to pure european every day ditching away eastern despothy crap. At least that's how I feel with people around me. The problem is just this huge amount of low-lifers all across the country, I mean, low-lifers are terrible in USA as well, lack of education makes them support those bullshit "traditions".[/QUOTE]
There is indeed somewhat moderate resolution in Central Russia, but Far East, and border regions with china and mongolia have their own setting and mindset. Also Caucaus. With such diversity there can't be one dominationg setting, instead things have to grow for specific region settings.
Moscow is indeed pulling th blanket a bit too hard, but that is only because there is no one to pull it back.
As i always say, we need a diverse non-foreign backed regional opposition, soo that in every part of country there was somebody stepping on goverment's toes, instead of circus of clowns resting in Moscow exclusivly, representing pretty much no one but radicals and idiots.
[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;46368211]Somehow I doubt that will ever happen in a peaceful way.[/QUOTE]
That's also the problem.
In modern world everyone believes in power of revolutions but sees reforms as useless waste of time.
When Putin's gov took thing in control back at dawn of milennia, ofcourse they used their power to wipe out oligarch wars and reform army in agressive and abusive ways. But in the end, Country stood, even thought everyone believed it would collapse (and that ukraine would be far most succesful). That was achieved not without reformations.
Healthy opposition with regional infrastructure is capable of supporting governency when you start to pluck out roots of corruption, without it, you'd see same corrupted personel over and over again on spot. And when there is no risks of reforms knocking out your own chair from under you, they seems far more plausible.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;46368173]There is indeed somewhat moderate resolution in Central Russia, but Far East, and border regions with china and mongolia have their own setting and mindset. Also Caucaus. With such diversity there can't be one dominationg setting, instead things have to grow for specific region settings.
Moscow is indeed pulling th blanket a bit too hard, but that is only because there is no one to pull it back.
As i always say, we need a diverse non-foreign backed regional opposition, soo that in every part of country there was somebody stepping on goverment's toes, instead of circus of clowns resting in Moscow exclusivly, representing pretty much no one but radicals and idiots.[/QUOTE]
You don't even need to move far to find a different mentality.
Compare St.Petersburg and Moscow. Moscow and Rostov-na-Donu. Moscow and Yekaterinburg.
We have a different mentality, mindset and ethnic group every 500 km or so.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46367428]1432 - 1832 only rich men can vote[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Freeholders who owned land worth 40 shillings got the vote, and this did not account for inflation. It would be more accurate to say that rich men, the landed, the educated (universities were represented), etc could vote. While still small, this wasn't especially an tiny electorate.
[quote]1832-1918 only educated men (and rich I suppose) can vote (apparently this was only 60% of the population)[/quote]
You ignore the reform acts of 1867 and 1885. They extended the franchise to cover the middle classes, artisans, skilled workers, farmers, and many rural people too. I would say Britain resembled a democracy more after 1867 than a plutocracy.
[QUOTE=bravehat;46367570]It's also the exact thing that pretty much destroyed social mobility in Britain at the time so not only would you not be able to vote, but there was pretty much zero chance of you or your kids getting anywhere in life.[/QUOTE]
Rates of social mobility are pretty much the same in most societies, and are little changed by legal or economic reform. A bloody war or revolution is where most of it happens.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46361051]Can you explain this "unique Russian mentality" to me?[/QUOTE]
There's this good old "Good Tsar, bad Boyars" thing.
It's all the local authorities fault, the supreme ruler is a kind and infallible man always.
[editline]30th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46368320]You don't even need to move far to find a different mentality.
Compare St.Petersburg and Moscow. Moscow and Rostov-na-Donu. Moscow and Yekaterinburg.
We have a different mentality, mindset and ethnic group every 500 km or so.[/QUOTE]
Compare Moscow to fucking anywhere in Russia.
I think Moscow can be considered its own state like Vatican, it's just so different from everywhere else.
[QUOTE=Deng;46368404]Not necessarily. Freeholders who owned land worth 40 shillings got the vote, and this did not account for inflation. It would be more accurate to say that rich men, the landed, the educated (universities were represented), etc could vote. While still small, this wasn't especially an tiny electorate.
You ignore the reform acts of 1867 and 1885. They extended the franchise to cover the middle classes, artisans, skilled workers, farmers, and many rural people too. I would say Britain resembled a democracy more after 1867 than a plutocracy.
Rates of social mobility are pretty much the same in most societies, and are little changed by legal or economic reform. A bloody war or revolution is where most of it happens.[/QUOTE]
I posted a shortened version of the wiki page. I could have listed each and every reform like you did from the page but chose not to. He asked when and under what conditions it had been practised, if he wanted more information he could have followed the link.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46368956]I posted a shortened version of the wiki page. I could have listed each and every reform like you did from the page but chose not to. He asked when and under what conditions it had been practised, if he wanted more information he could have followed the link.[/QUOTE]
It's just that the simplified list you posted bore very little relation to reality before 1918.
[QUOTE=Deng;46369037]It's just that the simplified list you posted bore very little relation to reality before 1918.[/QUOTE]
Righto next time ill post an entire wikipedia article of the history of england and contact you so you can confirm its historic accuracy. Shall I ask your current facepunch account or your old account?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.