Vladmir Putin

[Sander]

It's not. I had the opportunity to experience it and i can tell you it's not. Maybe i was lucky

Yes, you were.

but me, my family and my friends had it good in former yugoslavia, now everywhere i turn i see misery and poverty. I judge democracy on a count of my surroundings and my experiences, can you blame me for doing that.

Yeah, that's not the fault of 'democracy', it's the fault of many, varied issues in former Yugoslavia. Democracy is not some magical cure, of course, and it can't suddenly fix an economy. The transition to democracy and capitalism for a plan-based, communist society can be tough and can be messed up.

But that doesn't mean democracy and capitalism are the problem.

 

[Atomkilla]

One thing I am really missing in Serbia though is an unbiased view on the past particularly the Yugoslavian war. If you ask the common people they many times don't even know what the real reason was. And they usually blame each other.

So true.
Few days ago I've been making a sort of a small survey among the high school/teenage/youth population of my town (the population I belong too) - the survey in particular was about '90s and Yugoslavian wars.
It came as very disappointing to me that a very small percent of people know that there was a war at all (referring to war in Bosnia, everyone knows about NATO bombardment, seemingly), and even among those who know there was a war, that's where their knowledge on the subject ends - they don't know the cause, the history, they don't even know among whom the war was lead.
And yet they hate on the Croats and such...

Even about Kosovo War, which is essentially a subject "closer" and more familiar to them, they know very little. Who fought it, why...

It is very disappointing. I find it very alarming, that the growing generation, one that will take over the lead in Serbia, knows nothing about its very recent past, about its problems, about wars, about the crimes Serbs committed, about Milošević's regime...

That being said, I find it hard that 10 or 15 years are enough to change things entirely - Milošević's influence and that of his subordinates, regardless of their status, is still wide-spread. Trying not to be overly pessimistic, but I doubt Serbia will ever come to terms with its past and its real present needs.
It's almost in our nature to drown ourselves in the devil's cauldron, while the devil's taking a nap, as the joke goes...

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I named those examples bacuse they clearly show what can be achived in a small period of time.

What, kill millions of people and then collapse in chaos and war?

Rapid industrial development and economic growth achieved in those countries are by no means unique in history. In fact, every developed country in the world has had similar - and often more sustained - periods of rapid growth. That's how they got to be called developed countries, duh.

Those systems that failed did so bacause the madmen in charge had their own agenda and because America was involved in some form.

Yep, sounds like a Marxist-Leninist to me. The same kind of delusional outlook which sees America's evil influence in every negative thing that happens in the world.

Except destruction of these systems wasn't even a negative thing. On the contrary, it was a blessing for the entire world, and if America helped them along in any way, it deserves praise rather than scorn.

One last thing a two praty system is not a democracy

Yes, it is. All that's necessary for a system to be defined as a democracy is citizen participation in formulation of public policy, either directly or through elected representatives. The number of political parties is less relevant than you think. If anything, some of the world's most democratic countries have only two powerful parties, but they also have strong intraparty democracy which permits a broad spectrum of political views within the same party - USA, for instance.

It also widened the gap between rich and poor, every day we are witnessing unprecedented levels of decadence while the middle class is slowly choking on debts

Yes, yes, every one of the countries you named has produced similarly unequal - and often much worse - distribution of wealth. None of that changes the fact that American citizens enjoy an incomparably higher standard of living than either of those countries, or that America, being a democracy, actually allows open public discussion of these issues, as well as political action to change them. Whereas in your beloved USSR, China, Yugoslavia, or whatever other failed shithole you want to bring up, social stratification is institutionalized as part of the established political order, and any attempt to challenge it is ruthlessly repressed by the regime.

It's not. I had the opportunity to experience it and i can tell you it's not. Maybe i was lucky but me, my family and my friends had it good in former yugoslavia, now everywhere i turn i see misery and poverty. I judge democracy on a count of my surroundings and my experiences, can you blame me for doing that.

Unless your family was part of the 1% Party elite, then I call bullshit on your claims of "having it good" in Yugoslavia. Citizens of Yugoslavia had a low standard of living - that's a fact. From the '70s on Yugoslavia was in near-perpetual economic crisis, marked alternately by liquid currency shortage, shortages of fuel and other necessities, and runaway inflation. The deteriorating economic conditions were a consequence of the inefficient and fundamentally broken planned system of government, and they adversely affected the standards of living of all of Yugoslavia's citizens. Even the so-called "middle class", i.e. families of educated professionals (like mine own), had it much worse than they would in any country of developed democracy and capitalism.

For instance, my mother and my uncle, despite being executives in some of the largest companies in the area, and having dozens of people working under them, could only afford their respective families a modest standard of living. For example, for years we couldn't afford to buy a car, and even then the only option available to us was a shitty socialist Yugo. Imported cars were simply not allowed in Yugoslavia, and we wouldn't have been able to afford them anyway. We also couldn't afford to travel abroad, or buy a PC, or a foreign (i.e. non-shitty) bike, or a Sony stereo. We also could never even dream of buying our own apartment or house. The only reason we had a roof over our heads was because we had been given an apartment by the state - on the condition that it had to be in a small backwater town rather than a place of our own choosing.

Looking back now, these restrictions seem laughable. Our family began to prosper pretty much the minute Yugoslavia disintegrated. Sure, we were still middle class, but in capitalism "middle class" has a whole different meaning. In just ten years we were able to buy an apartment in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Zagreb, and a German car, and a million other little things that were once beyond our reach, but suddenly became affordable without a second thought.

Today, more than twenty years later, I live in the United States. As a PhD student, I'm paid a small stipend by my university, a pittance by American standards. Yet even with that pittance, I have a standard of living that my family could only have dreamed of in Yugoslavia. I rent an apartment by myself. I'll be buying a car soon. I have outstanding healthcare. I eat out nearly every day. I buy consumer electronics like there's no tomorrow. And I still have some money left at the end of every month. And at the end of the road, when I finally get my degree, I'm pretty much guaranteed a job that will pay ten times what I make now.

Seriously, fuck Yugoslavia. For all the fond memories we have of it, it was still a shithole of lost dreams and denied opportunities. And though I can't help but feel affection for its cultural legacy, I would still sooner kill myself than live there, or in any place like it. Thank you, but I'll take western decadence over eastern poverty any day of the week.

And on that note, fuck all dictators and all autocratic regimes. You deny your citizens freedom and prosperity - even the imperfect kind that people of western democracies enjoy - therefore you deserve to be dragged out of sewer pipes and shot like dogs. And to hell with all your apologists, as well. Every gullible European leftie who loves to blather on and on about the decadence and other evils of the West, while simultaneously holding up miserable despotic cesspits as superior alternatives, deserves to be sent off for a one-year stint at a North Korean gulag... or a Foxconn factory.

 

[Sander]

Yes, it is. All that's necessary for a system to be defined as a democracy is citizen participation in formulation of public policy, either directly or through elected representatives. The number of political parties is less relevant than you think. If anything, some of the world's most democratic countries have only two powerful parties, but they also have strong intraparty democracy which permits a broad spectrum of political views within the same party - USA, for instance.

Nyeeeeeehhhhhhh, no. The two-party 'system' as it functions in the US fosters polarization on a lot of issues, which is neither reflective of the population, nor particularly conducive to getting shit done. The US political system is fairly dysfunctional and archaic, and donperkan certainly has a point that the distribution of wealth and the treatment of the low-income segment of the population is problematic.

Still miles ahead of most non-democratic countries, though, and it's certainly doesn't reflect on democracy as a whole.

 

[DammitBoy]

the distribution of wealth and the treatment of the low-income segment of the population is problematic.

lol

 

[Yoshi525]

Hello Deebs. As someone who lives, eats, and breaths Russian sociopolitics, what's your take on Mr Putin?

 

[34thcell]

For instance, my mother and my uncle, despite being executives in some of the largest companies in the area, and having dozens of people working under them, could only afford their respective families a modest standard of living.

My parents had a similar experience, but prefer it over current times and even the first world. Of course a consumer society has more stuff, so what? Yugos are cool.

 

[DammitBoy]

Hello Deebs. As someone who lives, eats, and breaths Russian sociopolitics, what's your take on Mr Putin?

a tough smart dictator who should be watched with caution

 

[Crni Vuk]

is it really possible ... I think it is.

I agree with you.

For instance, my mother and my uncle, despite being executives in some of the largest companies in the area, and having dozens of people working under them, could only afford their respective families a modest standard of living.

My parents had a similar experience, but prefer it over current times and even the first world. Of course a consumer society has more stuff, so what? Yugos are cool.

Its not just about consumerism.

A society like the US or anything comparable offers much more choices for you compared to most (if not all) of the former Yugo states. That is a simple fact. A good relative which is a graphic designer had to come and visit Germany to get some job. There is almost no chance in Serbia to find a job which you believe would somewhat fit your likings and preferences. There are simply way to many limitations.

 

[donperkan]

Yeah, that's not the fault of 'democracy', it's the fault of many, varied issues in former Yugoslavia. Democracy is not some magical cure, of course, and it can't suddenly fix an economy. The transition to democracy and capitalism for a plan-based, communist society can be tough and can be messed up.

But that doesn't mean democracy and capitalism are the problem.

Maybe you are right, my opinion largely formed on the fact that my country is run by imbeciles, but the fact is there are systems that can provide a "magical cure" fore the economy you joust dismiss them because previous examples where tied whith morons.

What, kill millions of people and then collapse in chaos and war?

Rapid industrial development and economic growth achieved in those countries are by no means unique in history. In fact, every developed country in the world has had similar - and often more sustained - periods of rapid growth. That's how they got to be called developed countries, duh.

You are fucusing on their demise, but prioir to this end there was a priod of prosperity and stability.

Yep, sounds like a Marxist-Leninist to me. The same kind of delusional outlook which sees America's evil influence in every negative thing that happens in the world.

Except destruction of these systems wasn't even a negative thing. On the contrary, it was a blessing for the entire world, and if America helped them along in any way, it deserves praise rather than scorn.

...I live in the United States...

Realy, i'm the one who is delusional?

Yes, it is. All that's necessary for a system to be defined as a democracy is citizen participation in formulation of public policy, either directly or through elected representatives. The number of political parties is less relevant than you think. If anything, some of the world's most democratic countries have only two powerful parties, but they also have strong intraparty democracy which permits a broad spectrum of political views within the same party - USA, for instance.

(Edit: something went wery wrong here. The video bacame private)
the only one i could find

Yes, yes, every one of the countries you named has produced similarly unequal - and often much worse - distribution of wealth. None of that changes the fact that American citizens enjoy an incomparably higher standard of living than either of those countries, or that America, being a democracy, actually allows open public discussion of these issues, as well as political action to change them. Whereas in your beloved USSR, China, Yugoslavia, or whatever other failed shithole you want to bring up, social stratification is institutionalized as part of the established political order, and any attempt to challenge it is ruthlessly repressed by the regime.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You owning an ipod in contrast to our parents owning a tv set doesn't mean a higher standard of living.

For instance, my mother and my uncle, despite being executives in some of the largest companies in the area, and having dozens of people working under them, could only afford their respective families a modest standard of living.

Something is fishy here. My mother was an accountant in Yucko you probably had their furniture and my father was a janitor in Tang you definitely had their tools, money was not a problem for them. My father had a collection of Alfa Romeos, they regularly shopped in Trst, vacations on adriatic.

I <s>am</s> was the 1%

My parents had a similar experience, but prefer it over current times and even the first world. Of course a consumer society has more stuff, so what? Yugos are cool.

Why is that? Il'l tell you, they where happy they didn't need flatscreen tv's or mobile phones they only wanted enough to be able to provide for their family. This is not nostalgia they where genuinely happy.

 

[El Pagano Loco]

I really wouldn't call USA a democracy "per se".

1. It's a biparty system so it's about as democratic as...yeah.

2. It's "democracy" is on pretty much stone age level.

3. You might as well put it out in the open and just have Goldman CEOs replace the congress alltogether.

Now to touch the communism argument. Systems like USSR, China, Yugoslavia etc. WERE NOT communist as in Marxist-socialist (real communist) sense. Although being labeled as "communist" they were actually capitalist, with only real difference being that in their case the only capitalist in the state was the state itself together with the autocratic head and his elite. Real socialism has only started to develop in recent years in countries such as Denmark, Iceland, etc. and it's going incredibe. So please, don't confuse authoritarian, oppresive, single party autocracies such as USSR or North Korea with actual communism/Marxism.

 

[Sander]

Maybe you are right, my opinion largely formed on the fact that my country is run by imbeciles, but the fact is there are systems that can provide a "magical cure" fore the economy you joust dismiss them because previous examples where tied whith morons.

No, because you can't see the subsequent demise as separate from the earlier development. They're part of and caused by the same system.

But rapid economic develop of a pre-industrial nation is not caused by a political system. That has happened in every kind of system.

 

[zegh8578]

i must admit a slight man-crush on putin

aww, thats okay putin!

 

[donperkan]

No, because you can't see the subsequent demise as separate from the earlier development. They're part of and caused by the same system.

Their collapse was caused by external factors, not because they weren't sustainable. Thats why i'm fascinated by those systems. If left alone or excluded from global interactions they will focus on resources and meterials within their boundaries which will create enough commodities to supply their people. The problem occurs when they collide with other systems.

But rapid economic develop of a pre-industrial nation is not caused by a political system. That has happened in every kind of system.

Only a system with centralised power can produce results in a short time. A government sees a gap or an insufficiency it immediately activates mechanisms to counter this, it doesn't have to concern it self with cost or the situation on the market. It needs something fast, it reroutes resources and stimulates its growth.

There are simply way to many limitations.

Such a soft word for a shity job market.

 

[Sander]

Their collapse was caused by external factors, not because they weren't sustainable.

Well that's just not true. Soviet Russia didn't collapse because of external factors, it collapsed for a variety of reasons, both domestic and foreign. Hitler's Germany did not collapse because of external factors, it collapsed because it could only sustain itself through aggressive, expansionist politics that brought it into conflict with the rest of the world.

Thats why i'm fascinated by those systems. If left alone or excluded from global interactions they will focus on resources and meterials within their boundaries which will create enough commodities to supply their people. The problem occurs when they collide with other systems.

Those systems have plenty of internal problems, too, but fact is that you can't isolate yourself in that way.

Only a system with centralised power can produce results in a short time. A government sees a gap or an insufficiency it immediately activates mechanisms to counter this, it doesn't have to concern it self with cost or the situation on the market. It needs something fast, it reroutes resources and stimulates its growth.

False (or inaccurate) for a number of reasons.

For one, democracies have centralized power, and can exercise it swiftly as well.
Second, dictatorships and oligarchies do not automatically respond quickly, effectively or intelligently. In fact, the dogmatic problems and self-delusion involved in Soviet-era planned economies were a major factor in their eventual collapse.
Third, many of the swiftest economic developments occurred in democracies, not dictatorships or other forms of authoritarian government (see: the US, post-WW2 Western Europe), while many authoritarian governments struggled to transition to an industrial society (Imperial Russia, for instance).

You are focusing on the form of government, while that is largely irrelevant.

 

[Sub-Human]

Soviet Russia didn't collapse because of external factors...

Well, the push of foreign material, and especially banned/censored products like mass media did help the collapse of the Union, but then again, you could classify it as an internal issue.

 

[incognito]

I really wouldn't call USA a democracy "per se".

1. It's a biparty system so it's about as democratic as...yeah.

2. It's "democracy" is on pretty much stone age level.

3. You might as well put it out in the open and just have Goldman CEOs replace the congress alltogether.

It used to be democratic over 130-140 years ago. The point that the founding fathers of America made was that this Union will not run by one or select few rater a rule of law, also called a republic. The current crop of politician seems confused and quite literary misinformed by what shud be simple issues. Most resent example of this is Tim Geither who was laugh at in China uttering nonsense about money in a classroom. I would not hire him cont pens at my office. It is a sad story, what happens to a government that is taken over by banks.

USSR did exactly the opposite what Karl Marks Said, instead of making a working class the owners it made the state the owner, thus making in a sense the state became a entity that controlled smaller copies of self in central planing manor. The main point of Marks was the working people would\ will be exploited fore their labor until they united to become equally strong as the investor\ big money interests in a world scale since the big money entities almost always has leverage over workers.

To speak of the Scandinavian lands i would say that they have started the decent of democracy to kleptocrat\ plotocrat. Why i say that they are career politicians which they sacrifice the people by introducing draconian law fore jobs in the EU.

Capitalism has never existed, will never exist since economic is used as low level warfare against other countries then against itself. Best examples on this see Chile economic history before Augustus Pinochet and after.

It seems only democracy that works is when it 150 people or less. after that you cant keep control who is who, what perspective they speak from, or what they did before. If you are part of lets say 100 million people you must rely on second hand information and trust they knows what they taking about.

That said the real key to survival is the energy system or some call it the economy fore any state to keep it democratic.

 

[donperkan]

Well that's just not true. Soviet Russia didn't collapse because of external factors, it collapsed for a variety of reasons, both domestic and foreign. Hitler's Germany did not collapse because of external factors, it collapsed because it could only sustain itself through aggressive, expansionist politics that brought it into conflict with the rest of the world.

A big role played the insane arms race during the cold war which got out of hand, those costs where not sustainable. The similar thing happend to hitler he focused on militarization which could not be covered by germanys economy he was hoping to pach that up by expanding.

Those systems have plenty of internal problems, too, but fact is that you can't isolate yourself in that way.

The isolation eventually fails because the grass is greener on the other side.

You are focusing on the form of government, while that is largely irrelevant.

I don't understand, explain.

It seems only democracy that works is when it 150 people or less. after that you cant keep control who is who, what perspective they speak from, or what they did before. If you are part of lets say 100 million people you must rely on second hand information and trust they knows what they taking about.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Maybe you are right, my opinion largely formed on the fact that my country is run by imbeciles, but the fact is there are systems that can provide a "magical cure" fore the economy you joust dismiss them because previous examples where tied whith morons.

The very idea of either communism or national-socialism being resurrected in any shape or form in Europe or America is more horrific for me than any Lovecraftian nightmare. My grandparents lost their entire families in pogroms carried out by Nazis and their domestic collaborators. On the other hand, my parents and their siblings lost their entire lives to communism, a system that denied them opportunities to realize their potential and live truly prosperous lives.

I have a suggestion - rather than clamor for these systems to be reinstated in the West, why don't you move to North Korea, a nation that will guarantee you the same kind of progress and prosperity that you could find in USSR and other countries you so blindly adore. And make sure you send us a postcard from the gulag.

You are fucusing on their demise, but prioir to this end there was a priod of prosperity and stability.

... which was inextricably causally tied to their demise.

Realy, i'm the one who is delusional?

I'd say my experiences give me a greater breadth of perspective, as opposed to your own worldview, blinkered by inadequate education and silly delusions of the past.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You owning an ipod in contrast to our parents owning a tv set doesn't mean a higher standard of living.

Uh, yes, it does. Greater purchasing power for the same amount of work is a pretty clear indicator of a higher standard of living.

I can't believe I'm being made to argue that United States has a higher standard of living than fucking communist Yugoslavia. Like I said - delusional.

Something is fishy here. My mother was an accountant in Yucko you probably had their furniture and my father was a janitor in Tang you definitely had their tools, money was not a problem for them. My father had a collection of Alfa Romeos, they regularly shopped in Trst, vacations on adriatic.

I <s>am</s> was the 1%

I see. You realize this completely discredits you, as well as reaffirms my argument that communism produced similarly inequitable distribution of wealth as capitalism? Hell, one could argue that it's even worse, because while your father enjoyed his collection of Alfa Romeos, the majority of the population lived in poverty.

Also, shopping in Trieste was something we did as well. That's not an indicator of wealth, numbnuts, that's just further proof how fundamentally deficient Yugoslavian socialism was, with its closed market and import restrictions. It's simply contemptible that in Italy we could buy immeasurably higher quality clothing at a similar or lower price than what was offered in crappy Yugoslavian shops.

And to your argument about vacations in the Adriatic - why couldn't we vacation in Spain, instead? Or Greece? Or Thailand? Or the Alps? Or any of the other places that are visited by millions of western Europeans and Americans every year, yet we could only dream about them while watching documentaries.

Why is that? Il'l tell you, they where happy they didn't need flatscreen tv's or mobile phones they only wanted enough to be able to provide for their family. This is not nostalgia they where genuinely happy.

Actually, I have a much simpler explanation for the "Yugonostalgia" exhibited by our family members. Really, it's brilliant in its simplicity. Ready for it?

They were thirty years younger back then!

Think about it and you'll know that I'm right. It's perfectly normal to be nostalgic about one's younger days. When you think back to the times when you were in your twenties and your whole life was ahead of you, of course your current life will seem bleak in comparison. That doesn't change the fact that our lives would have been much better if we had been born in a saner country, with greater personal freedoms and a better economic system.

 

[Sander]

A big role played the insane arms race during the cold war which got out of hand, those costs where not sustainable. The similar thing happend to hitler he focused on militarization which could not be covered by germanys economy he was hoping to pach that up by expanding.

So, you're saying that in both cases the countries imploded because they spent beyond their means (more or less)?

Those collapses were not incidental to their systems. The Soviet planned economy was horribly inefficient, while the Nazi system could not be sustained without aggressive, expansionist tactics. Neither of which is exactly a hallmark of longevity.

The isolation eventually fails because the grass is greener on the other side.

Isolation fails because you can't live that way in a modern (or, really, any) world.

You are focusing on the form of government, while that is largely irrelevant.

I don't understand, explain.

I did. The form of government is not the determining factor in whether or not a country can industrialize quickly. The fact that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (re-)industrialized relatively quickly does not mean that their governmental structures were the determining factors, nor does it mean that those governmental structures will cause those economic developments elsewhere (as indeed they have not in many cases), nor does it mean, well, anything else you've been arguing.