Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Michael
If I thought you'd take my views about Russia as just a source of your own amusement, I wouldn't have bothered to reply.
|
No of course! I meant people who think you can meet a bear in the centre of russian city, for example ... Maybe that phrase was a result of non-nativity of English language for me. I didn't want to deride you, it would be not politely.
I'm sorry about your imagination about me. The feature of Internet is that you don't know anything about your interlocutors. I think I may lead a topic in several directions: an earnest and some joking one. I think each person can choose some of these directions, which is interesting for him. You can write that is interesing for YOU only. This topic was intended as a serious one, but if you turn back you see a very little amount of posts on it. I mentioned sayngs to quicken the topic.
If this question is related with your profession, you can discuss it with some your collegues in political fild in Russia. But I thought official points of view are very dry and some people as you wants to know some non-official ideas, about perceptions of common people in Russia. I could try to tell, why our president is so popular or why many people are tuned against the west and is it truth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Michael
I guess I don't understand your point here.
Why is a liberal (meaning rule of law) democracy not very interesting? It is the only rational system suitable for free human beings. It has its faults, but it is less odious than any other known system of governance.
|
I regret I posted the sentence '... some other people from this forum...' as a reply for you and you think probably I meant you. It was a chance only. There were several posts from other people, consisting from several words about 'first of couse'.
So, why do you refer 'meaning rule of law' to LIBERAL democracy only?
I don't think democratic isn't interesting, I ment there are many facts, showing that USA and other west countries collaborated with autocrat governments. Do you know that in Saudi Arabia if you steal something then they cut your hand, and it is not the most terrible thing in this country. But Bush said this country is the best friend of America in the Near East... On the other hand we know some positive examples in collaborating with autocrat countries countries: with USSR during World War II. Thus I wanted you identify some border between different parts collaborations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Michael
I used the word 'Atlantic' to denote a distinction in the West between consensus-driven proportional systems used mostly in Continental Europe and the competitive-driven 'first-past-the-post' system used by Britain, Canada and USA (which are often called the 'Atlantic' alliance).
|
Probably you thought I am plain person, if I don't know such simple term. But as you know there was an ancient Greek philosopher Socrat, that asked people about some simple notions. A person answered him something, that is very clear for them, but then Socrat spoke them some counter-evidences and the person changed his initial point of view and so on. Finally the peron anderstund he significant changed his first opinion. I don't pretend to any bit of Socrat wisdom, but I wanted to find out your real opinion about this notion. Japan isn't located on Atlantic, but it is a democratic and first-past-the-post country!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Michael
I consider the former to be inherently prone to political stagnation, the latter, more dynamic (and thus more suited to a large geographic area such as Russia).
|
Do you really think so about Russia only? Do you think, if Russia is very large it wouid be better to be some autocratic??? If I remember it heretofore you wrote vice versa...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Michael
I'll agree but only up to a point. If Royal Russia was so awful for middle-class, one wouldn't have existed. Fact is, there was a middle class under Nicholas II (and it was about 10-15 percent as you noted). Lenin and Stalin mostly eliminated that class through various techniques. There was no Russian middle-class of any substantive form existing under Soviet rule.
|
Maybe, really it is difficult to understand percentage of a middle class. But Lenin presented workers and peasants and this is a part of middle class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Michael
Fact is, I'm a longtime student of history, economics, philosophy and political theory - particularly European - and I have given long consideration and discussion of your opening question. I may not be correct and knowing in all things (I'm certainly not) but I offered you my best consideration upon the question and I'm more than willing to offer a full defense and justification of any word I post at this forum. But you choose to dismiss my opinion and mock me. So be it.
Further discussion with you would not serve any civil purpose for me.
|
I didn't mock your post. I didn't reply about your mind of Putin only. Although I am disagree with you on it, I decided to give no reply on it because attitude to Putin personally is very subjective thing I think.
I am pity about it, but I'll be in this topic.