RE: Arab Spring in Moscow?

RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/16/2011 10:47:50 PM)
Yes, sure, when I say "Russians think... " about democracy and then I speak about democrat Russians who do not think the same, I am implying that the first "Russians think" is "the majority". And, as I have repeated many times in this subforum already, every statement from me is "as long as nobody proves me otherwise", I do nor pretend to have a warranty of absolute truth. Nonetheless, I would like to insist on quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Democracy is a human right for everyone. Really, tweakabelle? Can you bring us internationally accepted declarations of the human rights including democracy? The matter is not trivial. You could tell me "well, there are none but I think it is". But then again... really? Human rights are the baseline of a moral system. For the people who support this moral system, nothing is more important as to keep them. They frequently enter in conflict, and this provokes interesing and important discussions about what is to be done in such situations, based on the particular ideology or filosophy of everyone (humanism, marxism, liberalism, socialism, etc.) . But when they enter in conflict with regulations, laws, corporate policies or something similar... they win. Morally, they are always above such things. So, what if democracy enters in conflict with human rights? IMHO, if democracy is a human right, then you have to decide case by case and you may reject some human rights in the name of democracy. IMHO this is very dangerous. I really prefer democracy to be a way to defend human rights, and not a human right itself. It should serve them, not be one of them. And it should never superseed them or be a reason to deny them. Think about the protection of minorities. Anyway, this is completely another discussion. You may ignore me from now on in this thread :D you have more than accomplished your promise to answer me, we can leave it here.

tweakabelle -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/16/2011 11:32:44 PM)
Article 21. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ As you can see the right to democracy is not specifically mentioned. It is arguable that Article 21 above strongly implies a democratic system of government. The "will of the people [exercised through] universal suffrage .... expressed in periodic and genuine elections" free from duress and allied with the right to participation in government by all citizens isn't quite a definition of democracy - but it's pretty close. May I add that your suggestion that this topic deserves a thread of its own seems to me to be a very sensible suggestion.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/17/2011 1:09:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Article 21. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ As you can see the right to democracy is not specifically mentioned. It is arguable that Article 21 above strongly implies a democratic system of government. The "will of the people [exercised through] universal suffrage .... expressed in periodic and genuine elections" free from duress and allied with the right to participation in government by all citizens isn't quite a definition of democracy - but it's pretty close. May I add that your suggestion that this topic deserves a thread of its own seems to me to be a very sensible suggestion. Probably. Still, you did beat me off that one as badly as I have ever beaten off in this forum up to day, I must admit. I was acting on the supposition that the dictatorships had prevented the approval of such degrees of democratic thought in the Declaration of the UN. I was seriously, heavily wrong. I should have checked first instead of forcing you to search. I apologize. That said, I do not really feel like participating in another thread. I thank you very much, really, but I have some problems with the administrators already (I pissed off too many people I guess) and at the same time, I am disappointed of the site itself (collarme.com), so I am almost completely retired. I only participate in the "Agnostic" thread and when that one ends I do not plan to participate more at all. I just entered here because of my special connection with Russia, dorogaia ("dear"). Best regards.

tweakabelle -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/17/2011 2:02:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Article 21. [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ As you can see the right to democracy is not specifically mentioned. It is arguable that Article 21 above strongly implies a democratic system of government. The "will of the people [exercised through] universal suffrage .... expressed in periodic and genuine elections" free from duress and allied with the right to participation in government by all citizens isn't quite a definition of democracy - but it's pretty close. May I add that your suggestion that this topic deserves a thread of its own seems to me to be a very sensible suggestion. Probably. Still, you did beat me off that one as badly as I have ever beaten off in this forum up to day, I must admit. I was acting on the supposition that the dictatorships had prevented the approval of such degrees of democratic thought in the Declaration of the UN. I was seriously, heavily wrong. I should have checked first instead of forcing you to search. I apologize. That said, I do not really feel like participating in another thread. I thank you very much, really, but I have some problems with the administrators already (I pissed off too many people I guess) and at the same time, I am disappointed of the site itself (collarme.com), so I am almost completely retired. I only participate in the "Agnostic" thread and when that one ends I do not plan to participate more at all. I just entered here because of my special connection with Russia, dorogaia ("dear"). Best regards. That sounds like a compliment - so thank you! [:D] Thanks for your contribution to the thread - it was valuable. I'm sorry to hear your news. I'm not sure that I was involved in a competition - I never felt that. Perhaps if you approached posting here as less of a competition and more of an exchange for mutual benefit, you mightn't be having the mod problems you refer to ...... Just a thought !

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/17/2011 3:03:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Russia has had many revolutions in their recent and distant past... Butch Russia has had one revolution in the past 1100 years. The romanoff dynasty lasted about a thousand years and the bolshivicks had the first and only revolution in russian history about a hundred years ago.

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/17/2011 3:30:48 PM)
To understand it you need to understand his methods. For most of those that were killed there was a knock in the middle of the night. You were dragged off and beaten until you confessed. Then beaten some more. Walked through the woods to and unmarked grave where they would point a large calibre pistol at the back of your head and shoot. Now with your face gone you were put into a grave. Never to be identified. And likely your family would have been soon joining you. How very melodramatic... Do you have any validation for any of this drivel?

kdsub -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/17/2011 4:18:52 PM)
Call THIS what you will but it looks and feels like revolution to me… And revolution continues in armed rebellion to this day… again call it what you will I choose revolution...I remember tanks in the streets...how about you? Butch

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/17/2011 9:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Russia has had many revolutions in their recent and distant past... Butch Russia has had one revolution in the past 1100 years. The romanoff dynasty lasted about a thousand years and the bolshivicks had the first and only revolution in russian history about a hundred years ago. Here the point goes to thomsonx . Even if he is wrong about the bolshivicki (that was a coup, the revolution was in February), even with the popular resistance against the military coup of 1991, even if it has had a lot of peasant revolts during its history and even if the Romanov actually did it to 300 years only. Yes, he makes mistakes, but the base line is that Russia is a remarkably calm country where people tend to respect the authority and accept horrible governments quite more than in other countries. And on this he is right. Some reasons include the huge rural population (compared to other countries in the past) and right now... I don't know, really, but a (Russian) girl told me "well, Stalin killed all men with balls, the genetic pool is affected since..." . Maybe she is right, somehow (in the Great Purge at least one million, if not two million, people where executed, in a population of 107 million). Or maybe it is only a cultural impront which will vanish in the time. The disappearance of the Soviet Union can count as a revolution only if you do not require the participation of the masses. I think that in the context of this thread, only revolutions driven by the population count. The popular resistance of 1991 is therefore more relevant for this purpose as the fall of the Soviet Union, which was more a result of the internal dynamics of the political elite.

blacksword404 -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 2:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx To understand it you need to understand his methods. For most of those that were killed there was a knock in the middle of the night. You were dragged off and beaten until you confessed. Then beaten some more. Walked through the woods to and unmarked grave where they would point a large calibre pistol at the back of your head and shoot. Now with your face gone you were put into a grave. Never to be identified. And likely your family would have been soon joining you. How very melodramatic... Do you have any validation for any of this drivel? Perhaps. But I guess those bodies never existed. "The NKVD slated for extermination entire categories of people, such as kulaks, priests, former members of antiBolshevik armies, those who had been abroad or had relatives abroad, and immigrants from Galicia; even average citizens perished in huge numbers. An indication of the vast scope of the Great Purge was the discovery, during the Second World War, in Vinnytsia, of a mass grave containing 10,000 bodies of residents of the region who were shot between 1937 and 1938. Given the lack of complete data, it is difficult for Western scholars to establish the total loss of life brought about by the Stalinist terror." http://www.brama.com/ukraine/history/terror/index.html

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 3:52:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx To understand it you need to understand his methods. For most of those that were killed there was a knock in the middle of the night. You were dragged off and beaten until you confessed. Then beaten some more. Walked through the woods to and unmarked grave where they would point a large calibre pistol at the back of your head and shoot. Now with your face gone you were put into a grave. Never to be identified. And likely your family would have been soon joining you. How very melodramatic... Do you have any validation for any of this drivel? Thomsonx, I recommend you not to dig too much in the Grand Terror of the '38 . What is described there is not so bad compared to other things which happened. I have studied the matter more near and I had nightmares, even right now as I write this, it is difficult. I think we all agree that Stalin was a dictator and very cruel. We can leave it like that, we do not need to dig on the details.

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 5:15:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Call THIS what you will but it looks and feels like revolution to me… And revolution continues in armed rebellion to this day… again call it what you will I choose revolution...I remember tanks in the streets...how about you? Butch You can call it what you wish you are still wrong. Perhaps you should get a dictionary and look up what the word revolution means.

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 5:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Russia has had many revolutions in their recent and distant past... Butch Russia has had one revolution in the past 1100 years. The romanoff dynasty lasted about a thousand years and the bolshivicks had the first and only revolution in russian history about a hundred years ago. Here the point goes to thomsonx . Even if he is wrong about the bolshivicki (that was a coup, the revolution was in February), even with the popular resistance against the military coup of 1991, even if it has had a lot of peasant revolts during its history and even if the Romanov actually did it to 300 years only. The history books say 1000 years. Yes, he makes mistakes, but the base line is that Russia is a remarkably calm country where people tend to respect the authority and accept horrible governments quite more than in other countries. And on this he is right. Some reasons include the huge rural population (compared to other countries in the past) and right now... I don't know, really, but a (Russian) girl told me "well, Stalin killed all men with balls, the genetic pool is affected since..." Tomishinko and zhukov had no balls???? . Maybe she is right, somehow (in the Great Purge at least one million, if not two million, people where executed, in a population of 107 million). Or maybe it is only a cultural impront which will vanish in the time. Population of soviet union in 1940 was about 180 million The disappearance of the Soviet Union can count as a revolution only if you do not require the participation of the masses. I think that in the context of this thread, only revolutions driven by the population count. The popular resistance of 1991 is therefore more relevant for this purpose as the fall of the Soviet Union, which was more a result of the internal dynamics of the political elite.

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 5:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx To understand it you need to understand his methods. For most of those that were killed there was a knock in the middle of the night. You were dragged off and beaten until you confessed. Then beaten some more. Walked through the woods to and unmarked grave where they would point a large calibre pistol at the back of your head and shoot. Now with your face gone you were put into a grave. Never to be identified. And likely your family would have been soon joining you. How very melodramatic... Do you have any validation for any of this drivel? Perhaps. But I guess those bodies never existed. Which bodies? "The NKVD slated for extermination entire categories of people, such as kulaks, priests, former members of antiBolshevik armies, You forgot to include the aristocracy. those who had been abroad or had relatives abroad, and immigrants from Galicia; even average citizens perished in huge numbers. An indication of the vast scope of the Great Purge was the discovery, during the Second World War, in Vinnytsia, of a mass grave containing 10,000 bodies of residents of the region who were shot between 1937 and 1938. Given the lack of complete data, it is difficult for Western scholars to establish the total loss of life brought about by the Stalinist terror." Your own cite says it does not know th extent or the reason for these deaths so what is your point? http://www.brama.com/ukraine/history/terror/index.html

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 5:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Thomsonx, I recommend you not to dig too much in the Grand Terror of the '38 . What is described there is not so bad compared to other things which happened. I have studied the matter more near and I had nightmares, even right now as I write this, it is difficult. I think we all agree that Stalin was a dictator and very cruel. We can leave it like that, we do not need to dig on the details. That stalin was a dictator or that he could be cruel is not the question. Was he any more a dictator or more cruel than the romanoffs he replaced? Of course the base question should be was russia better off under stalin or the romanoffs?

tweakabelle -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 7:05:50 PM)
quote: Of course the base question should be was russia better off under stalin or the romanoffs? If your point is that Russia was better off under Stalin than the aristocracy, I'm happy to grant that. But I'll need a lot of persuading that the difference amounts to an awful lot. It's fair to insist that Russian rulers ought to be judged in the context of their own history. It's also fair to insist that they be judged in the context of alternative modes of government available and thriving in other countries in Europe and elsewhere during their era.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/18/2011 10:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Population of soviet union in 1940 was about 180 million Maybe, my data says "Russia" and I probably made a mistake there. Does not change the point, though. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Tomishinko and zhukov had no balls???? Statistically speaking. BTW I have no proof of the valor of Timoshenko. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The history books say 1000 years. No, they don't . Find one history book online saying that. Even the own Romanov said otherwise, and they celebrated the 300 years of dinasty in 1913, in one of the last important celebration they actually celebrated. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Was he any more a dictator or more cruel than the romanoffs he replaced? He did not replace the Romanovs, he replaced Lenin, himself a cruel dictator. And both were more cruel as the Romanovs. I do not think that this is an historical question either, it is pretty clear and obvious for any historician I have ever read. But at least it is a question, so I thank on putting the focus away from '38. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Of course the base question should be was russia better off under stalin or the romanoffs? Well, it is good that this is an even more obscure question as the one before. We will neven know, of course, what would have happened in the Febrary revolution would not have taken place. My bet is, however, that the famine would have forced the Romanovs to improve their economic policy and that in all other aspects the whole Russian Empire would have been much better off. Anyway, that question must remain open... would have been the economic policy of the Romanov so extremely bad, that it would have provoked even more sorrow and destruction as the horrible economic policy of the bolcheviki, plus the horror provoked by their terror? I do not know, but my guess is "no", with a "pretty sure" certainty. It is difficult to do it worse as the bolcheviki, with mothers eating their own children to survive. What would have happened if the February would have been successful and the Romanovs stayed in power only as constitutional monarchs, is pretty clear, though. In that case the future of Russian would have been brilliant. Ia liublu Lvov ... I am an admirer of Prince Lvov and the K-D's. The bolcheviki anihilated that future and I will never forgive them for that. It was their first major crime.

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/19/2011 1:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Of course the base question should be was russia better off under stalin or the romanoffs? If your point is that Russia was better off under Stalin than the aristocracy, I'm happy to grant that. But I'll need a lot of persuading that the difference amounts to an awful lot. Would you consider such things as the abolition of slavery,universal sufferage,equal pay for equal work,universal access to litteracy,universal access to education,modernization of agriculture practices,quantum leaps in industrailization to be areas that we might consider for comparison between the czar and the socialists that proceed from the bolshivicks? It's fair to insist that Russian rulers ought to be judged in the context of their own history. It's also fair to insist that they be judged in the context of alternative modes of government available and thriving in other countries in Europe and elsewhere during their era. I agree, but it is difficult since there exists no country of the same magnitude as russia. In europe there were no absolute monarchies like russia. At a whim the russian emperor or emperoress could create thousands of slaves,confiscate their lands and give the new slaves and land to whom they pleased.

tweakabelle -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/19/2011 1:40:02 PM)
quote: It's fair to insist that Russian rulers ought to be judged in the context of their own history. It's also fair to insist that they be judged in the context of alternative modes of government available and thriving in other countries in Europe and elsewhere during their era. I agree, but it is difficult since there exists no country of the same magnitude as russia. In europe there were no absolute monarchies like russia. At a whim the russian emperor or emperoress could create thousands of slaves,confiscate their lands and give the new slaves and land to whom they pleased. I see your point again. I don't believe our perspectives are all that dissimilar. However, decisions by successive Soviet Russian leaders created a perverse dictatorship of the Party, not of the proletariat as Marx decreed. For over half a century, they declined to take democratic options or to share their power with the people in whose names they claimed to rule. Instead they chose to deploy a cruel murderous reign of terror, a wholly unnecessary reign of terror in which hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted with little or no discernible gain. It's arguable that these decisions laid some of the seeds that eventually resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russian-style Marxism. I'm far from convinced that we ought to be too forgiving for calamitous decision-making on this scale.

thompsonx -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/19/2011 3:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Population of soviet union in 1940 was about 180 million Maybe, my data says "Russia" and I probably made a mistake there. Does not change the point, though. My point was that with a larger population the percentage of body bags goes down. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Tomishinko and zhukov had no balls???? Statistically speaking. BTW I have no proof of the valor of Timoshenko. He was a pretty famous guy...kicked the living shit out of von paulus. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The history books say 1000 years. No, they don't . Find one history book online saying that. Even the own Romanov said otherwise, and they celebrated the 300 years of dinasty in 1913, in one of the last important celebration they actually celebrated. The "assembly of the land" would never have considered michael romonov for tsar if he had not been related to ivan iv by mariage. Thus a relatively seamless change from the house of rurik to the house of romanov. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Was he any more a dictator or more cruel than the romanoffs he replaced? He did not replace the Romanovs, he replaced Lenin, himself a cruel dictator. And both were more cruel as the Romanovs. I was contrasting stalin to the tsar because lennin was in power for such a relatively short period of time compared to stalin. I do not think that this is an historical question either, it is pretty clear and obvious for any historician I have ever read. But at least it is a question, so I thank on putting the focus away from '38. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Of course the base question should be was russia better off under stalin or the romanoffs? Well, it is good that this is an even more obscure question as the one before. We will neven know, of course, what would have happened in the Febrary revolution would not have taken place. My bet is, however, that the famine would have forced the Romanovs to improve their economic policy and that in all other aspects the whole Russian Empire would have been much better off. Anyway, that question must remain open... would have been the economic policy of the Romanov so extremely bad, that it would have provoked even more sorrow and destruction as the horrible economic policy of the bolcheviki, plus the horror provoked by their terror? I do not know, but my guess is "no", with a "pretty sure" certainty. It is difficult to do it worse as the bolcheviki, with mothers eating their own children to survive. What would have happened if the February would have been successful and the Romanovs stayed in power only as constitutional monarchs, is pretty clear, though. In that case the future of Russian would have been brilliant. Ia liublu Lvov ... I am an admirer of Prince Lvov and the K-D's. The bolcheviki anihilated that future and I will never forgive them for that. It was their first major crime. The tsars had more than a thousand years to get their shit together the bolshivicks turned it around in less than twenty years. The only people I can find that stalin had murdered were the ones who were standing in the way of his vision of a socialist state. I do not see him as any less bloodthirsty than the tsars he replaced. What he did with that blood was dramatically different.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Arab Spring in Moscow? (12/20/2011 4:44:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My point was that with a larger population the percentage of body bags goes down. Yes, but my point remains unchanged. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Tomishinko and zhukov had no balls???? I have no proof he had. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx He was a pretty famous guy...kicked the living shit out of von paulus. This does not prove his balls. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The "assembly of the land" would never have considered michael romonov for tsar if he had not been related to ivan iv by mariage. Thus a relatively seamless change from the house of rurik to the house of romanov. You are being stupid here. You said "the history books say 1000 years". Wrong, they do not. You said that the Romanov ruled, and this was not true. According to you logic the Romanov would have been Ruriks, not the other way around (blood goes from parents to children, not the other way around). And they themselves considered it 300 years and not 1000. So, you were simply WRONG, and you are trying to avoid recognizing it with pretty stupid arguments. Please do not be stupid, I would like to end this conversation without that. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I was contrasting stalin to the tsar because lennin was in power for such a relatively short period of time compared to stalin. You may compare what you want but he did not replace the Romanovs, he replaced Lenin. It is more than doubtful that he COULD have ever replaced the Romanovs. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The tsars had more than a thousand years to get their shit together the bolshivicks turned it around in less than twenty years. I do not even understand the logic behind that sentence. If there is any. Or your point. If you have any. The Russian society was evolving, as any other society. And in the moment the bolcheviki took the power, the Russian society was moving fast towards a democracy - very fast. That was precisely the reason Lenin decided to make the coup, he knew that he would not have another chance. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx The only people I can find that stalin had murdered were the ones who were standing in the way of his vision of a socialist state. That means you know very few about the history of the Soviet Union. I recommend you to learn more. He even admitted openly that we was killing a lot of innocents... even by his own point of view! But we do not need to rely on that, the millions murdered speak by themselves, there is enough data and documented enough. If you want, I can recommend you some books for the start. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I do not see him as any less bloodthirsty than the tsars he replaced. He did not replace the tsars. Lenin did, and he replaced also the Constitutional Assembly. And Stalin was much more bloodthirsty as the tsars, and quite more even than Lenin. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What he did with that blood was dramatically different. There I agree. I think we are speaking about all and nothing, I do not see any more point here... I have corrected some of your errors, you have corrected one of me, I would call it a day unless you have any concrete question to me.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02