Yes, I don't want to offend some other people from this forum, but the answer "First choise off course" is not very interesting, because the problem lies some more deeply, I think.


Apparently yes, but 'Atlantic' is rather an empty word than a capacious notion I think. There is some problem anyone can exactly define, what 'Atlantic' means... What do you mean by it?


Is it "it is impossible to win a nation who eat an ice cream in winter"?
Funnily, when I was a little I ate ice cream in 10 degrees of frost. It is truth. But now it would be too strange for me

There is a funny proverb in Russia: "what is good for Russians, that is death for Germans". (I think you can't understand it as well as I can't understand British humour)


I am absolutely agree with you about a problem of middle-class. But the situation in a royal Russia was very awful, worse than soviet Russia (except stalins period). If there were very happy, there wouldn't have any dethronements. The middle-class was 10-15 percent at most (not 80), I think. Up to 80th there were not any oppression except a social one. The family of my great-grandfather was a noble and they had several acres, they lost them of course, but they were able to find in a new life themselves. And they didn't suffer. Certainly, in stalins period they were VERY affraid. But in the royal Russia there were ethnic oppressions. For example, there was a horrible law, that Hebrews may not live in cities, they may live further than 100 kilometre circle only...



Sorry, but it is your stereotype of Russia only, I think.
Some west ideas about Russia look in a funny manner for me.

Why not?
But I think if Russia is a democratic stable rich country, I will not see any reasons to join to EU. Maybe it is more profitable to create a union with some other countries from past USSR.

Usually is a key word in your post

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 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).

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).

No, that is not Churchill's famous epigram about Russia.

"Russia is a mystery, hidden inside a riddle and wrapped up in an enigma". (off my memory, wording may not be exact, but is very close).

It is not a joke. It is an epigram (a clever saying) - much like a proverb.

It is a reminder to non-Russians that Russia is very complex and difficult to understand for non-Russians. I certainly don't claim to understand Russia or Russians, only some passing knowledge of, and interest in, the topic.

I admitted that I developed a passionate interest in Russia long ago. I may not share the Russian outlook (I am very Western), but I do have some understanding of it. And I can see the nature of the Russian humour here. It does strike me as a very Russian saying (with the stereotypical Russian fatalism).

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.

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.

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.

One of the main economical considerations - we don't understand why would we return to the USSR model, when the rich and hardworking regions must donate poor and lazy ones. In USSR it was the mad worldwide spreading of Communism that took and buried all strengths in vain, in EU case the Transnational Companies' high top management cheats and harvests the profits in a rudely veiled way, while the workers of donor-countries are milked harder. I do hear in EuroNews all the way as industry enterprizes, factories leak to the Asia and leave next few thousands of workers without job - that process wind up slowly. We see from aside this myth about the so-called post-industrial society and well see what China does.
Tell me, what do you suppose Danemark has definitely won from EU-membership besides common words about new pan-european identity, what the Switzerland hasn't?

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...

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.


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!


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...

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.

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.

What is your opinion of the the Republican party taking some time off to formulate their supply side economics platform?

What would be a more ideal form of socialism?

There is no difference between Republican and Democratic party - they both are proxi-parties, the sort of virtual dihotomy, supporting the impression of two hot contradictions. Their real aim is only one - to change one another if the job is going bad and to make you think the wrong guys always are being replaced with good ones with 50,5% against 49,5% as the ideal democracy model should look like - and of course, you think your state is the instance of Ideal Democracy - how else?
It is mathematic. GIVEN - Both parties support the war plans. There comes the logical fork then. IF the war plans were successfull - OK, the "ruling" party stays as leader. IF the war plans were unsuccessfull - THEN the "ruling" party dismounted, the "oppositional" - win. END - The "ruling" party become "opposition", and the "opposition" - otherwise. A:=B, B:=A. Cycle. REPEAT UNTIL (Conditions as follows).
The gap between the middle class and high top elite grows ever wider - Reps or Dems were "in power" - for many years. And you say, the socialism comes in the nigh?

You present an interesting point. However, if we only vote for the party of massive surpluses, does it really matter which political party is running the massive surpluses?

Both "rival" parties represent the same interests of the same small elite group on the top of your society. The current president and current party are like the cloth to them - as soon as this cloth gets too dirty and stinks (if they spent the hell of the time and that was too loud, so that the middle class is inevitably ready to react), they simply change the garment for the new - in reality old washed one.
It's well seen for instance as everybody likes to associate the Iraq gamble and failure directly to the personal adventurism of Bush as if it is Bush who like the great emperors of the past designed the doctrine and waged the nation after the flight of his mind. That is how it works. Now Bush and some small "sacrifice" part of Republicans are drenched in the sins, they like sponge absorbed all the mischiefs and claims and are now ready for the garbage bin.
There is only one party - very small, non-political and not loving publicity - and you always vote for it, though I don't think they represent anything except for their own interests.

I am of the opinion, that if I consistently vote for a party that runs massive surpluses, it will not necessarily matter how they promote the general welfare; since there will always be surpluses with which to guarantee funding for the general welfare.

Germans democratically elected Hitler and were generally satisfied and happy approximately untill the 1942, not asking themselves how did the government promote their welfare. So, if Halliburton will accurately pay all taxes, there is no need to care what do it's devils do as this happen somethere beyond the border of USA and brings the profit?
I speak about the adventures of the elites which you can not prevent with your voting (cause voting result doesn't affect on the plans of elites) but which you risk to pay for.

You present an interesting point. However, WWII, implies that Hitler was more interested in promoting the general warfare than the general welfare. I advocate promoting the general welfare.

It is unfortunate that there is no mechanism for the people to actually vote on promoting the general welfare, versus the general warfare.

That is why I recommend voting for the party that will guarantee massive surpluses for the public treasury. With massive surpluses available, the populace can then decide what services they would like their public sector to provide. Currently, the command economics of the warfare-state, tend to limit choices for the populace due to the need of a warfare-state to manufacture enemies of the state in order to perpetuate itself.

Absolutely you can affect the plans of elites with your votes, especially in the example you gave.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu