[LeLoupRouge]

You know, I just saw a report on Boris Yeltsin, where they were hailing him as a hero. It was only an hour long so I may be missing out on certian things, but, he didn't seem like anything more than a sellout to Capitalists. Maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture here, but he seemed very incompetent, and nothing more than lucky. I can understand that the Communist party was corrupt at the time, but that calls for reform, not the importation of Capitalism, right?

I keep hearing a large amount of the Russian people want Communism back- this is the same generation who tore it down I'm pretty sure. Why would they want it back now?

[Adrien]

Well i'm no expert on Yeltsin's reign, but the ones who are today praising him are certainly not the populations but the awfully rich company owners who built their wealth on his intense and anarchistic liberalization program.

And he was indeed incompetent, and not only because he was drunk 24/7 and using his time to destroy the image of Russia abroad; all he did was to put the power in the hands of the financials, of companies, which of course drowned the country. He even trained Putin that way; the problem is that now Putin made a big turn and decided to put the financial power in the hands of the state (you certainly know that Drunk Boris was irritated by the Yukos case).

Yes a majority of the people want the Soviet Union back, even in its "perverted" form of the 1989-91: at least they had a house, a job, and could live.

You know what we say, people only realize what they have when they lose it.

[Nucleicacidman]

I agree with Adrien, Yeltsin was truly innefective and to my opinion did not help with the democratic advancement of Russia.

[Din]

if you have seen the latest election reports then you will see that the communist parties are now begininng to lose a few votes, Yeltsin was an incopetent fool, but anyway..

[Simon Ostap]

I'd relate the loss of votes to the Communist party not to a loss of interest in the people, but really to a number of outside factors.

1) The communist party is made up of morons who spend more time fighting eachother and reorganizing then they do rallying support.

2) The existence of pro-authoritarian parties, stalinists, and the like scare a lot of voters away from the calmer kinder socialist parties.

3) The factioning of the party it's self leads to huge shifts in voting patterns for all parties. People don't really know who or what they're voting for.

Factor in the last too bills relating to Russian parliament I heard, 1) A limit on the number of members any party can have (The CP tried to stop this one) and 2) Due to a lack of money being donated by the middle class, it was decided that a number of duma seats would go to the highest bidder, disgusting isn't it.

Either way, I won't say the Communist party in Russia has much of a chance these days, but a number of survey's I've looked over say that Russians defineatly believe in a great deal of socialist ideals and policies, wether that will ever pan out in the powerless quarreling duma is yet to be seen.

[Person]

You know, I just saw a report on Boris Yeltsin, where they were hailing him as a hero.

If they didn't praise him, they'd be attacked by everyone except for the communists. His little revolution made things a lot worse, but he's still seen as a hero "because he brought free market economy and made it all better".

he didn't seem like anything more than a sellout to Capitalists.

He only continued what Gorbatchev started...
Initially, I think he was a pretty bright individual that seized power when he had the chance, but after that, he either started drinking VERY heavily, or was drugged. (if you look at him now, compared to 5 years, ago, he looks a decade younger)

I can understand that the Communist party was corrupt at the time, but that calls for reform, not the importation of Capitalism, right?

Everything has always been corrupt, not just the communists, and not just at that time.

I keep hearing a large amount of the Russian people want Communism back- this is the same generation who tore it down I'm pretty sure. Why would they want it back now?

I put Russians into two major groups: "old", and "modern".
"Old" is made up of largely senior citizens who lived a lot better under communism, and therefore wouldn't mind having it back.
"Modern" is probably the generation that tore down communism, along with the next generation which has become so westernized that they have no idea what's going on.

Why would we want it back? We tried a western-style government, and that isn't working out, why wouldn't you want to change something that isn't working?

Keep in mind that I don't really associate myself with any of the major political ways (socialism, democracy, etc.) , I want whatever is best for my country.

[Trotskito]

What Boris Yeltsin did was bring democratic elections to Russia... Now I'm not too well informed but I'm pretty sure that even under a democracy, they vote for the communist party.

[tragicclown]

What Boris Yeltsin did was bring democratic elections to Russia... Now I'm not too well informed but I'm pretty sure that even under a democracy, they vote for the communist party.

Democratic elections? It doesn't count as "democratic" if you're allowed to ban the opposition party and disband parliament on a whim, not to mention rule on a constitution that was never legally ratified by Yeltsin's own admission? Do democratic presidents order tanks to fire on their capital building when it isn't voting in the way they want it to, or gun down opposition by the hundreds in the streets when they protest the use of special forces against elected officials? When he did allow elections, he only "won" in 96 by running on the creative campaign promises of using the army to crush the Russian government if he lost.

There has never been democracy in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. If ever given the opportunity of a legitimate democratic election even by the standards of the west, the Communists would be returned to power, which is why the Russian government will never tolerate a legitimate western style democracy. Boris Yeltsin ran the country as an absolute dictatorship and Vladimir Putin has only been moderately more subtle in giving the vague illusion of some participation in the government.

[malachi151]

Its very sad that Gorby left. He could have really been the greatest Russian leader of all time IMO. The Russian fools got rid of the best thing they had going.

[Disenfranchised]

Its very sad that Gorby left. He could have really been the greatest Russian leader of all time IMO. The Russian fools got rid of the best thing they had going.

malachi151 I greatly admire your knowledge of U.S.A.. I would very much like to hear a discussion Twix yourself and Maxim Litvinov. I doubt that any discourse that does not take into account the events and the environment from at least the latter 19th Century stands on a foundation of speculation as stable as sand.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I can barely spell Zyuganov, and thr only thing that the Yabloko Party brings to mind is apples ... In short, my knowledge of the last 15 years of Russian politics is absurdly lacking.

So, no discussion, I'm sorry. Although I can't see why a discussion of Gorbachev should really need discussion of the late 19th C.

For what it's worth, personally, I am sorry that one of the first reform periods in the USSR since the 1920s under Gorbachev didn't work. Gorbachev seemed to be the most flexible and conciliatory of all the Soviet leaders, and certainly made a change from it being ruled by old farts for 50 years...

But these are not great points. With ony a very limited knowledge of the collapse of Communism, I believe Gorbachev basically lost power due to - liberals and non-Communists taking advantage of his concessions, with hardliners simultaneously getting scared of his concessions to final decide to kidnap him...

For those who say that the majority of Russians would vote for communism if they could - would you clear this up, please? I mean - there's a Communist Party and Communist candidates. Are you saying that this is not a real Communist Party, or that votes for it mysteriously *vanish* on the counting table, or that the current electoral system makes it impossible for the Communist Party in particular to take control, or that the people have been somehow *brainwashed* into not voting Communist.

I've got no problem saying that many people were better off under Communism. I've got no problem with the idea that too many feel disenfranchised now. But I'd love some particular evidence as to how the Communists have been kept out of power...

[Krasniy Yastreb]

of the collapse of Communism

You mean the collapse of Socialism, Or the collapse of the Communist government, but not Communism. Careful.

I believe Gorbachev basically lost power due to - liberals and non-Communists taking advantage of his concessions, with hardliners simultaneously getting scared of his concessions to final decide to kidnap him...

I think the nationalist tendencies of the Repulics (particularly the Baltic republics) were also a major factor in Gorbachev's loss of control. Their multiple declarations of independence shocked the hardliners, and were a major cause of their decision to take action.

[Disenfranchised]

Maxim Litvinov
I'm about flat ignorant of the Gorbachev era (cause LSD, Whiskey and V Twins satisfied my only passion adrenaline) at that time. The interests of Trusts took rampant control of the US government during the McKinley period after their greed and avarice developed into the great depression of the thirties (by the way I know of the smaller cycles of boom and bust) Revolution was only nearly avoid by the polices of FDR. Were there legacacies of earlier 19th century populous movements that may have contributed to either Gorbachev's support or opposition. I just abhor vacuums (except those of my own mental development).

[Maxim Litvinov]

I agree that the words you use can start to have an undue effect on your understanding over time -- but I use collapse of Communism, in the sense of the eastern Bloc being called Communist states, and them collapsing. They were called 'Communist states' because they endorsed rule by the Communist Party. I acknowledge calling it the 'collapse of Communism' is misleading and wrong if this sense isn't shared by my audience - and they somehow think the states *were* Communist. I personally don't think all of the eastern Bloc were great examples of Socialism though, so rather than call them 'Socialist', I'll try to call them, perhaps, Communist Party-States or something like that, if it helps.

Disenfranchised - it goes without saying that all people are affected by their historical background, whether they realise it or not. And it's admirable and all to have a thirst for history. I don't think I can satiate it though.

I can't really see anything coming out of the 19th C that was a major factor in Gorbachev's demise. Perhaps, though, you could draw upon arguments about the "Russian mentality". Something like - Russian people like strong leaders: they had tsars, and then Lenin, Stalin etc. By the time Gorby came along, he was seen too spineless in protecting their state, so they went for the strong-willed Yeltsin. But I personally don't buy that argument, because it has associated problems -
i) it attaches too much significance to the people's decisions (democracy), and not enough to the political powerplays of the elite.
ii) it runs a sort of historical inevitability line - the Russians will never have democracy, because "as a people" they can't work it out. I don't believe this.

The social situation from 1891 - 1991 had so profoundly changed, that I can't see its real effects on Gorbachev's rule.

I agree that the independence drives in outer Republics - particularly the Baltic states - was also a very important factor. Do you speak Russian, btw, Krasniy Yastreb?

[Disenfranchised]

Speak Russian? Oh! heck no. I'm only self educated and depend a great deal on the scholarly.

[Trotskito]

There has never been democracy in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I'll give you everything but that.
I don't know much about modern Russia, or the collapse of the USSR, but I do know a lot about the foundation of the USSR and Stalin's era, and there was NOT democracy. Even within the party, Stalin's opposition were put on show trials and killed. Furthermore, it wasn't like there was an opposition party.

[Adrien]

Furthermore, it wasn't like there was an opposition party.

Well honestly i think that the existence of an opposition party in itself is really not linked to the existence of "democracy" in a country, but then again we also end up with the problem of the definition of "democracy", which creates never ending debates..

[Krasniy Yastreb]

Do you speak Russian, btw, Krasniy Yastreb?

Only a tad. Mediocre vocabulary and zero grammar.

It's funny how different guys here have 'specialisations' in parts of Soviet history. I myself know mostly about the early 1970s.

I'd like to know more about Khrushchev's time though. 'Presidium' is a far better word than 'Politburo'...

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well there's just so much to know that I don't find specialisations that surprising. I guess what should be surprising is that so many people have studied little snippets here and there (Revolution, Cuban Missible Crisis, Postcommunism) without ever going through a course that gives a general overview ...

I personally think Khrushchev was a mean s.o.b. ... I mean, if you look at his rise to the top, he was one of the most brutal people around in terms of local Ukrainian administration under Stalin. Then, after Stalin's death and Beria's execution he made sure most of the incriminating evidence against him wasn't going to come out ... and presented himself to the world as some sort of harmless fool who'd bang his shoes on the table. In reality, Khrushchev was just a latter-day Stalin - and, in fact, the guy who is pilloried as the quintessence of Stalinist brutality - Beria - was much more liberal than Khrushchev ... My five cents.

Dumaiu, shto ia tozhe v klubke "bez grammatiki" ...

[Person]

I'll give you everything but that.
I don't know much about modern Russia, or the collapse of the USSR, but I do know a lot about the foundation of the USSR and Stalin's era, and there was NOT democracy. Even within the party, Stalin's opposition were put on show trials and killed. Furthermore, it wasn't like there was an opposition party

Stalin was a pretty mean guy, but he was what the USSR needed. He quickly raised the economy, and then won WWII. It would have been better if he died a few years earlier though.

Dumaiu, shto ia tozhe v klubke "bez grammatiki"

and it shows.
First of all, it's "klube" or "kruzhkhe". What you typed means "I think that I too am in the without-grammar ball of thread".
Writing in RusEnglish is an art, and here, abstract art doesn't count.