NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a strange country that has always fascinated me. It has such a rich and turbulent history, and these past few decades are no different. Part of the "Evil Empire", Russia was threatened with becoming a backwater in today's world, as is so often the case in its history. Now, it has found stability and a degree of progress thanks to the world oil market, and the steady, if autocratic hand of Vladimir Putin.
But signs of decay are already there. The CIS started as a joke and is virtually nonexistant, and despite its relative power, Russia only has limited influence over its ex-Soviet neighbors. Caucasian Russia is already disintergrating, and with rampant disease, a collapsed healthcare system, and extremely low fertility rates, the Russian population will decline, perhaps to less than 100 million by 2050. Immigration might help, but they're a xenophobic bunch.
I think there is hope for Russia, but not in its current form. There is little hope that the world's largest country can be goverened effectively from the Kremlin with so few resources, except with extreme centralization and an utterly oppressive police state, one that would make Stalin smile. Even then, parts of Siberia and the Caucasus would become a terrorist's playground.
What do you think?

This will probably sound stupid, but I think if Russia drops some of its far flung lands in Asia and parts of Siberia it will help in Russia's recouperation. The loosely applied logic to this is: if Russia has less land to defend it can concentrate on other things like the economy, or social structure, or healthcare or something.

You may now grab me by the throat and call me an idiot. I'm grown, I can take the abuse!

Well, they're already producing ethanol, at the cost of vodka of course.:(

I always felt they should become an international prison. They need money, we need the room.

Well, they're already producing ethanol, at the cost of vodka of course.:(

I always felt they should become an international prison. They need money, we need the room

Yeah, I here the Gulag is a nice place this time of year. :D

You may now grab me by the throat and call me an idiot. I'm grown, I can take the abuse!

Alright, then. *grabs*

Idiot, Siberian Russia is a huge mass of untapped resources: gold, oil, diamonds. Russia would be stupid to give up claim to it, especially since the land will instantly be claimed by either China or the US.

I think Russia will start becoming more nationalistic than we currently see. Putin's has a firm grip on power, and I'm thinking he'll work on continuing his grip on power. The Nashi might gain more power (as they're bankrolled by the Kremlin, Putin may even use them to help his power grow). Russia may very well end up looking outward to vent it's problems, and the U.S' relationship with Russia will probably get cooler.

Alright, then. *grabs*

Idiot, Siberian Russia is a huge mass of untapped resources: gold, oil, diamonds. Russia would be stupid to give up claim to it, especially since the land will instantly be claimed by either China or the US.

I didn't say all of it. Sheesh, just some it. And other lands, like the formerly Japanese island, now known as the Sakhalin Oblast. Just drop some of its far flung territory that have no real value.

I think Russia will start becoming more nationalistic than we currently see. Putin's has a firm grip on power, and I'm thinking he'll work on continuing his grip on power. The Nashi might gain more power (as they're bankrolled by the Kremlin, Putin may even use them to help his power grow). Russia may very well end up looking outward to vent it's problems, and the U.S' relationship with Russia will probably get cooler.

"Yes the Cold War is finally over!"

*random idiot in the White House walks in*

"Alright, after a 10 minute recess Round Two will officially begin."

"Yes the Cold War is finally over!"

*random idiot in the White House walks in*

"Alright, after a 10 minute recess Round Two will officially begin."

we've already soon a bit of it, with the U.S installing the missile shield in Europe, and Russia preparing to install missiles closer to the rest of Europe than before.

we've already soon a bit of it, with the U.S installing the missile shield in Europe, and Russia preparing to install missiles closer to the rest of Europe than before.

Yeeeep. Nothing like the threat of Thermo-Nuclear Annihilation to get your ass in gear.

I didn't say all of it. Sheesh, just some it. And other lands, like the formerly Japanese island, now known as the Sakhalin Oblast. Just drop some of its far flung territory that have no real value.

I agree. The question is how those lands, however useless, should be administered, and by whom. Those regions are under a very real threat of becoming a safe-haven for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Already, they roam freely in Chechnya.
And they should just leave their Southern areas now, and let them drown in their own filth. I'm sure they can find better ways to use all of those troops and money than to try to hold a few provinces that hate them, and have no economic value.

It's a strange country that has always fascinated me. It has such a rich and turbulent history, and these past few decades are no different. Part of the "Evil Empire", Russia was threatened with becoming a backwater in today's world, as is so often the case in its history. Now, it has found stability and a degree of progress thanks to the world oil market, and the steady, if autocratic hand of Vladimir Putin.
But signs of decay are already there. The CIS started as a joke and is virtually nonexistant, and despite its relative power, Russia only has limited influence over its ex-Soviet neighbors. Caucasian Russia is already disintergrating, and with rampant disease, a collapsed healthcare system, and extremely low fertility rates, the Russian population will decline, perhaps to less than 100 million by 2050. Immigration might help, but they're a xenophobic bunch.
I think there is hope for Russia, but not in its current form. There is little hope that the world's largest country can be goverened effectively from the Kremlin with so few resources, except with extreme centralization and an utterly oppressive police state, one that would make Stalin smile. Even then, parts of Siberia and the Caucasus would become a terrorist's playground.
What do you think?


You make me laugh. I went to Russia recently and it is anything but stable. Armed guards with machine guns stand on every street corner. Putin has taken the country back to almost the Soviet Union in terms of Civil freedom. I interviewed many people and they all unianimously agreed that they were better off with the Soviet Union.

I foresee a bounce back for Russia followed by a bad period followed by another bounce as is its style

really the problem is there hasn't been any kind of Marshall Plan for the former USSR

You make me laugh. I went to Russia recently and it is anything but stable. Armed guards with machine guns stand on every street corner. Putin has taken the country back to almost the Soviet Union in terms of Civil freedom. I interviewed many people and they all unianimously agreed that they were better off with the Soviet Union.

I didn't say it was free. But I'm glad you got a chuckle. It adds years to your life, years that you can watch Russia develop. Why were you there, btw?

I agree. The question is how those lands, however useless, should be administered, and by whom. Those regions are under a very real threat of becoming a safe-haven for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Already, they roam freely in Chechnya.
And they should just leave their Southern areas now, and let them drown in their own filth. I'm sure they can find better ways to use all of those troops and money than to try to hold a few provinces that hate them, and have no economic value.

If Russia decided to allow several of its provinces break away, I'm sure (for securities sake) that many other European countries would step in and aide these new countries. Or!- America will but its nose in and do something stupid and all we'll get is a bunch more European/Asian nations that hate us.

I've been wondering about this myself for a while now. I think Russia is heading towards some sort of authoritarian corporatist state, neo-fascist for want of a better word, except that this one will be really adept at playing the international economy and financial markets.

I think Putin will not try to change the constitution to run for another term, instead he'll become head of Gazprom. One of his mates will become the boss, and maybe after that Putin will run again. It doesn't really matter because the direction won't change.

So Russia will be playing oil and gas prices, make friends with corrupt governments (Burma, anyone?) to push OPEC out of the picture over time and resist countries like Ukraine looking towards the west. There'll be lots of spy dramas and assassinations.

Meanwhile I foresee an increasing military build-up (though they won't be too keen to actually use it) as money starts really flowing in. And meanwhile Russian state-financed corporate raiders will take control of the energy industry first in Europe and then in the US.

Dissidents within Russia will disappear, never to be heard of again. The same goes for gay rights activists. Immigrants will continue to be harrassed by right-wing groups and skinheads, which the government tolerates or even uses as a tool.

A view on why China should purchase Siberia.

http://www.slate.com/id/2086157/

I think the US should put a bid in for it. Stop fighting useless wars and spend the money on something worthwhile.

If Russia decided to allow several of its provinces break away, I'm sure (for securities sake) that many other European countries would step in and aide these new countries. Or!- America will but its nose in and do something stupid and all we'll get is a bunch more European/Asian nations that hate us.

Maybe. But the US will have to get involved. Already, we're spending billions to get rid of Russia's massive WMD stockpile. And while relations may cool further, I bet we'll cooperate with her on terrorism for as long as we both see it as a threat.

Maybe. But the US will have to get involved. Already, we're spending billions to get rid of Russia's massive WMD stockpile. And while relations may cool further, I bet we'll cooperate with her on terrorism for as long as we both see it as a threat.

Maybe. But I think if (thats a big if) Russia stablizes, it will be able to handle terrorism threatening its own security quite affectivly without American interference.

I've been wondering about this myself for a while now. I think Russia is heading towards some sort of authoritarian corporatist state, neo-fascist for want of a better word, except that this one will be really adept at playing the international economy and financial markets.

I think Putin will not try to change the constitution to run for another term, instead he'll become head of Gazprom. One of his mates will become the boss, and maybe after that Putin will run again. It doesn't really matter because the direction won't change.

So Russia will be playing oil and gas prices, make friends with corrupt governments (Burma, anyone?) to push OPEC out of the picture over time and resist countries like Ukraine looking towards the west. There'll be lots of spy dramas and assassinations.

Meanwhile I foresee an increasing military build-up (though they won't be too keen to actually use it) as money starts really flowing in. And meanwhile Russian state-financed corporate raiders will take control of the energy industry first in Europe and then in the US.

Dissidents within Russia will disappear, never to be heard of again. The same goes for gay rights activists. Immigrants will continue to be harrassed by right-wing groups and skinheads, which the government tolerates or even uses as a tool.

Why does every theory of Russia's future involve authoritarian dictatorship?

Maybe Russia will slowly evolve into a democracy...

or maybe it'll just stay the way that it is now...

And Russia...with a right-wing government? doesn't really fit...doesn't feel right...

Demographics is destiny. It means that Russia must either increase it's birthrate, or disappear this century as a nation.

Why does every theory of Russia's future involve authoritarian dictatorship?

Maybe Russia will slowly evolve into a democracy...

or maybe it'll just stay the way that it is now...

And Russia...with a right-wing government? doesn't really fit...doesn't feel right...
Why? It had one the majority of its existence. I would even go as far as to argue that Tsar Alexander III was the farthest-right leader of his day.

Why? It had one the majority of its existence. I would even go as far as to argue that Tsar Alexander III was the farthest-right leader of his day.

You idiot. At least under Czarist rule (for a little while a least, mainly under Peter the Great and Cathrine the Great) Russia had an era of unrivaled prosperity.

Maybe. But I think if (thats a big if) Russia stablizes, it will be able to handle terrorism threatening its own security quite affectivly without American interference.

Well, that's the thing. Russia will never stabilize to that point. At the very least, they'll always need our help for squelching terrorism beyond their own borders, something they should always be interested in. That is, unless it's state-sponsored.

You bigot. At least under Czarist rule (for a little while a least, mainly under Peter the Great and Cathrine the Great) Russia had an era of unrivaled prosperity.

I don't understand what would be bigoted about that remark. Really, I don't. But yeah, they did prosper a bit under those two, largely because they were slightly more liberal than the other big ones.

Why? It had one the majority of its existence. I would even go as far as to argue that Tsar Alexander III was the farthest-right leader of his day.

But the difference between right-wing authoritarian and left-wing authoritarian is pretty slim, especially on most practical issues. Almost all of their differences lie at the theoretical level, and as early Soviet history showed the theoretical often had nothing to do with the actual. Ironically enough, the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, especially after WWII (in particular 1945-1952 or so) had a higher level of income inequality than the Western capitalist nations, a situation which would only be resolved after Malenkov's and Khrushchev's reforms.

Well, that's the thing. Russia will never stabilize to that point. At the very least, they'll always need our help for squelching terrorism beyond their own borders, something they should always be interested in. That is, unless it's state-sponsored.

Give it a chance, Russia will stabilize, or the world is in for a shit-storm that blows the Red Revolution out of the water!

I don't understand what would be bigoted about that remark. Really, I don't. But yeah, they did prosper a bit under those two, largely because they were slightly more liberal than the other big ones.

I take back the bigot part. I was pressed for a word that discribed my anger at your remark, just disregard it.

I take back the bigot part. I was pressed for a word that discribed my anger at your remark, just disregard it.

No harm done.

No harm done.

:cool:

I didn't say it was free. But I'm glad you got a chuckle. It adds years to your life, years that you can watch Russia develop. Why were you there, btw?

;) Just had to mess wit ya.


I was there for the Model UN at my High School. Saw a lot of interesting things there. I even met a Russian Army Captain one on one after he literally got off the train from a year tour in Chechnya. Then road on the train to Suezdal that his replacement battalion was riding to Chechnya. I went to St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vladimir, and Suezdal.

Russia is to bleak, as lime is to green. (or coconut if you prefer).

;) Just had to mess wit ya.


I was there for the Model UN at my High School. Saw a lot of interesting things there. I even met a Russian Army Captain one on one after he literally got off the train from a year tour in Chechnya. Then road on the train to Suezdal that his replacement battalion was riding to Chechnya. I went to St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vladimir, and Suezdal.

Must be fascinating there. There's no other country in the world like it, I think. And the winters are any cold-weather enthusiast's dream (like mine!).

I have not been able to read all the arguments on this thread and I apologize, but as I find Russia very interesting, I must put my two cents in. First of all, I have and always will say that Russia and the former Russian and Soviet empires, could and can not be ruled by a democracy, simple as that. Whether it be a fascist, communist, or some other form of government, the government ruling over such a landmass must have the power of an iron fist. Without such power and central control, the various ethnic and religious groups of Russia (many of which do not consider themselves Russian) will splinter apart and there would be a hundred Chechnyas (which is why the Chechen War is so important to prove as an example). Russia was never a great power without such authoritarian rule, and the current nation-state seems to be living off the former glory of the empire before it. Merely sixteen years since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Russian state already seems to be deteriorating. The nuclear arsenal it possesses is becoming increasingly obsolete as warning and radar systems slowly decay into ineffective machines. It's economy is growing, yet many are still poor. I am not saying this is the end of Russia. It always seems that the Russian people prefer the "sovereign democracy" or "father knows best state" to the democratic republic that has seemingly abandoned it to economic failure. Whether Putin will step down in 2008(I hope he does, I really like him) or become the start of yet another empire of Russia is yet to be seen. All we know is that both history and geography have been cruel to the Russian people, and all it does is make them come back even stronger.

Why does every theory of Russia's future involve authoritarian dictatorship?
Probably because there've been very few Russian leaders who looked like they weren't heading in that direction. Even Yeltsin had his authoritarian tendencies. And apart from Belarus, I can't think of a country in Europe in which the people would have less chance to get rid of their government if they didn't like it.

You idiot. At least under Czarist rule (for a little while a least, mainly under Peter the Great and Cathrine the Great) Russia had an era of unrivaled prosperity.

Oh yeah, they were really prosperous alright. Having no money, no food, no homes. Yep, the people were suffering, but at least the Czar lived in his mile long home at the Hermitage.

They never had prosperity until the USSR.

Must be fascinating there. There's no other country in the world like it, I think. And the winters are any cold-weather enthusiast's dream (like mine!).

Haha, very much so. I was there in the dead of winter lol.


It was quite fascinating. I went to the Hermitage, inside the Kremlin, I watched a military parade in Red Square, among many many other things interesting. :)

I lived in the Soviet Union in the years 1985-89 (the period of the Gorbachev perestroika) and visited Russia for a week in 2002. Everything changed, and yet in many aspects the Russians did not change at all.
They are people like us, and yet sometimes things that were absolutely obvious for them were shocking to me. For example my friend told me that he wanted to study biology at the Lomonosov University (the most prestigious civilian academic learning institution in the USSR), he passed the exams but was rejected. I asked him why, he looked at me strangely and said, "Why, because I'm Jewish!". :eek:
I was shocked speechless. I wasn't aware that there was antisemitism in the Soviet Union. I was young and naive then...
Russia will change, I think more or less along the lines New Leonstein had described. They can't let go of any of their territories that are causing problems or they see the remains of their empire come apart at the seams. This is also an important prestige issue. So Russia will change on the surface, but it will remain much the same at the heart - authoritarian and xenophobic. :(

They are people like us, and yet sometimes things that were absolutely obvious for them were shocking to me. For example my friend told me that he wanted to study biology at the Lomonosov University (the most prestigious civilian academic learning institution in the USSR), he passed the exams but was rejected. I asked him why, he looked at me strangely and said, "Why, because I'm Jewish!".

I recall reading something about that in the book Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick. Apparently, anti-Semitism had a resurgence even above its earlier levels during the 1980's, most likely due to the combination of social liberalization and economic deterioration which allowed extremist groups like Pamyat to whip up such sentiments in all levels of the population. There were "too many Jews" in the sciences, and that led to widespread discrimination during the mid to late 1980's.

I recall reading something about that in the book Lenin's Tomb by David Remnick. Apparently, anti-Semitism had a resurgence even above its earlier levels during the 1980's, most likely due to the combination of social liberalization and economic deterioration which allowed extremist groups like Pamyat to whip up such sentiments in all levels of the population. There were "too many Jews" in the sciences, and that led to widespread discrimination during the mid to late 1980's.

Stalin and Brezhnev also used anti-Semitism at various points. It was always common in the Communist world, though I think because they made easy targets.

Stalin and Brezhnev also used anti-Semitism at various points. It was always common in the Communist world, though I think because they made easy targets.

It was at its worst in the late 40's, subsided during the 50's and 60's, and then revived during the 70's and 80's. A lot of it played on the overall condition of the Soviet economy and the quality of national leadership and the Communist Party. As the economy and leadership stagnated, anti-Semitism flared up worse and worse.

It was at its worst in the late 40's, subsided during the 50's and 60's, and then revived during the 70's and 80's. A lot of it played on the overall condition of the Soviet economy and the quality of national leadership and the Communist Party. As the economy and leadership stagnated, anti-Semitism flared up worse and worse.

Well, they're sadly the easiest people to blame historically. Americans typically have no idea how truly widespread anti-Antisemitism truly is.

My opinions on the future of Russia? Well firstly, some comments on its present. I do not think that anyone can be surprised that the government has taken some authoritarian measures recently. The near anarchy and extreme collapse of the 1990s was never going to be allowed to persist. These authoritarian measures are an attempt at retrenchment, an attempt to restore some stability to Russia and to introduce some normal conditions into Russian life. Putin, for all of his faults, may be said to have achieved this, although it is too soon to tell.

People in the west are often surprised by the fact that Putin has such high popularity ratings when he has persistently limited the freedoms of the Russian people. Such comment lacks any knowledge of Russian history. For Russia, periods of stern autocracy have often been accompanied by periods of international success. Ivan III, who smashed the liberties of Novgorod and Pskov, created a united Russian state for the first time since the Mongol invasion. Peter the Great oppressed Russian society to an unprecedented level but at the same time he created the Russian Empire by conclusively winning the Great Northern War. Stalin, whose oppressions are well known, led Russia to victory in the Second World War which allowed Russia to become one of the two super powers. In other words, authoritarianism in Russia has been historically validated. In comparison, periods of 'liberalism' and decentralisation have been consistently associated with failure. The cities of Novgorod and Pskov, which had constitutional systems similar to those in the medieval west, were crushed by the entirely autocratic Muscovy. A lack of centralised authority in the early 1600s caused the highly traumatic Time of Troubles. Khrushchev's destalinisation was accompanied by the back down over the Cuban missiles. The period of liberalisation in the 1990s was accompanied by territorial and economic collapse. Given this historical track record, it is unsurprising that the Russian people have so frequently acquiesced and supported authoritarian governments.

As to Russia's future, I do not think it need necessarily be all doom and gloom. The enormous natural resources in Russia (particularly oil and gas, which Europe needs badly) could be used to combat Russia's demographic decline. The profits could be used to implement better health care, immigration programmes etc etc. I also do not think that Russia will necessarily become more autocratic. It may be that Russia's leaders now judge that the state has a stable enough social base to begin its recovery. However, we need to see what Putin's successor has in mind before any more comment can be accurately made.

I haven't been liking where Putin's government has been going lately...it seems quite familiar with Soviet Russia.

Ivan III, who smashed the liberties of Novgorod and Pskov, created a united Russian state for the first time since the Mongol invasion. Peter the Great oppressed Russian society to an unprecedented level but at the same time he created the Russian Empire by conclusively winning the Great Northern War. Stalin, whose oppressions are well known, led Russia to victory in the Second World War which allowed Russia to become one of the two super powers. In other words, authoritarianism in Russia has been historically validated.
Oppressing their own people to gain more power to subjugate neighbouring peoples to gain more power to oppress their own people to gain more power. Hardly validating.

Oppressing their own people to gain more power to subjugate neighbouring peoples to gain more power to oppress their own people to gain more power. Hardly validating.

That's not how they see it.

That's not how they see it.
Well, I hate to admit that I have to sort of agree with that. Russian people are ready to suffer a lot for their empire and their leader. That attitude and its consequences like chauvinism are what I don't like in them. :(

superpower, again. maybe.

Russia has been under absurd government so much thet the country's future has been damaged beyond repair. And Putin is only continuing with this...

And Putin is only continuing with this...
However I may disapprove of its certain policies, I'd never call Putin's administration "absurd". He's tightening control over the country and fighting to strenghten the international position of Russia and so far he's succeeding.

Russia has been under absurd government so much thet the country's future has been damaged beyond repair. And Putin is only continuing with this...

Yeah, but as much as I dislike Putin, it's better him than some of the other people in that country.

superpower, again. maybe.

Doubt it. The USSR wasn't even a real superpower. They did a very good job tricking the world into thinking that they were one, but now we know that their power was all based on illusion.

This will probably sound stupid, but I think if Russia drops some of its far flung lands in Asia and parts of Siberia it will help in Russia's recouperation. The loosely applied logic to this is: if Russia has less land to defend it can concentrate on other things like the economy, or social structure, or healthcare or something.

You may now grab me by the throat and call me an idiot. I'm grown, I can take the abuse!

That's where all the resources are, fool.

Russia will be returned to glory as part of the new Soviet Union, led by me in the future.

I think a new group of Communists will eventually make their way to power get rid of this racist filth (not violently, through progressive education). Is it any coincidence that Yugoslavia stayed united, Czechoslovakia stayed united, East Germany was ridded of nazism, and all races of the Soviet Union lived in harmony, all under the rule of Communist parties? People are getting fed up with the capitalist system. As long as the Neo-Stalinist "National Bolsheviks" stay out of power, then history won't be repeated, and a new Communist Russia will be a great success. I have a lot of hope in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Russia is a joke now. Their economy is a mess, even worse off than the Soviet Union, and they still have autocracy! Look how health standards fell, look at the rise of racism, look at the rise in HIV and prostitution. A little more than a decade and capitalism has already messed the place up!

Doubt it. The USSR wasn't even a real superpower. They did a very good job tricking the world into thinking that they were one, but now we know that their power was all based on illusion.

It ceased being a true superpower after the Prague Spring, IMO. I think that really broke it since it showed they no longer had any real commitment to socialism but were focused on power at all costs.

It ceased being a true superpower after the Prague Spring, IMO. I think that really broke it since it showed they no longer had any real commitment to socialism but were focused on power at all costs.

IMO, it never really was. It was incredibly strong after WWII, and certainly not worth the cost of fighting a war with, but there wasn't an economy to speak of. Even their nuclear bombs were built on secrets stolen from the US and elsewhere, and their delivery systems, while advanced on paper, were often poorly constructed, maintained, and staffed. What troubles me most about Reagan's masterful arms buildup was why no one thought of it earlier.

IMO, it never really was. It was incredibly strong after WWII, and certainly not worth the cost of fighting a war with, but there wasn't an economy to speak of. Even their nuclear bombs were built on secrets stolen from the US and elsewhere, and their delivery systems, while advanced on paper, were often poorly constructed, maintained, and staffed. What troubles me most about Reagan's masterful arms buildup was why no one thought of it earlier.

Well, for about 20 years from 1953-1970 it did perform pretty well. They had an industrialized economy with high growth rates, rising living standards, domestic technological innovation and real gains in global influence. But it didn't last, and a decade later the economy was stagnant and on the road to collapse. The centrally planned economy's flaws played a role, of course, but it did work for a period of time.

In the end, the defense burden did them in. Brezhnev in particular spent huge sums on the military that diverted more and more resources from the domestic economy. It's hardly coincidental that life expectancy, alcoholism, absenteeism, corruption and all the other problems had a serious increase following economic deterioration in the mid and late 1970's. Reagan's buildup was the straw that broke the Soviet economy's back. It wasn't so much the increased expenditures, which really just brought US spending up to Soviet levels, but the technological buildup that did it. The Soviets couldn't afford that race; they could produce more tanks, but they couldn't keep developing new ones.

Well, for about 20 years from 1953-1970 it did perform pretty well. They had an industrialized economy with high growth rates, rising living standards, domestic technological innovation and real gains in global influence. But it didn't last, and a decade later the economy was stagnant and on the road to collapse. The centrally planned economy's flaws played a role, of course, but it did work for a period of time.

In the end, the defense burden did them in. Brezhnev in particular spent huge sums on the military that diverted more and more resources from the domestic economy. It's hardly coincidental that life expectancy, alcoholism, absenteeism, corruption and all the other problems had a serious increase following economic deterioration in the mid and late 1970's. Reagan's buildup was the straw that broke the Soviet economy's back. It wasn't so much the increased expenditures, which really just brought US spending up to Soviet levels, but the technological buildup that did it. The Soviets couldn't afford that race; they could produce more tanks, but they couldn't keep developing new ones.
True. And their willingness to throw their military weight around, especially in Afghanistan.

True. And their willingness to throw their military weight around, especially in Afghanistan.

That drained them badly, even worse than Vietnam did to the US. However, unlike the US, they didn't have the economic growth to bounce back from the losses or to mitigate the burden of the war. It hurt and kept on hurting until the end.

Those suggesting that Russia sell Siberia...its not gonna happen. There are two main reasons, one of which has been mentioned already.
1. Siberia is probobly the largest reserve of metals, natural gas, oil, diamonds, etc. left untapped on the entire planet. And, as a bonus, its exploitable now thanks to the miracle of technology.
2. Whatever else Putin is, he's a Russian. The thing about Russians is that, while they may not be particularly loyal or care much about their government, Russia is VERY important to them. Siberia is Russia's 'wild west', its part of their national heritage (as Russians view it) and giving it up would be like the US selling off its Southwest because its full of Mexicans.

As to the future of Russia...well, they tried democracy, it didnt work. If Putin screws things up too much, people will leave and Russia will end up adopting serfdom again when they run out of food again.

I'm a little late, but on the anti-semitism isssue, Lenin vocally condemned it. I read one of his speeches, talking about how discrimination against Jews was unacceptable, and the vast majority of Russian Jews were of the proletariat. I know after the degenerated workers' state took hold, things got a loss worse for race relations, but I still think the Soviet Union (and Communist countries in general) manage to deal with race better than the West did and does.

I still think the Soviet Union (and Communist countries in general) manage to deal with race better than the West did and does.
Explain then why - from the beginning to end of the Soviet Union - its citizens had to carry with them IDs that detailed their descent. And why in case of Ukrainians it was "Ukrainian", but in case of Ukrainian Jews it was "Jewish".

I never said the system was perfect, I'm saying that the Soviets managed to keep racism a lot quieter than it is in Russia now. In the Soviet Union, you would never see neo-nazis marching around the streets of Moscow. In East Germany, nazism was completely destroyed. Communism helps races cooperate and coexist. I think the best example of this is Yugoslavia. Look at what happened with the fall of communism. And yes, there were oppressed races within the Soviet Union, but in case you haven't noticed, there are oppressed races in the United States now. There weren't lynch mobs in the Soviet Union. There wasn't slavery in the Soviet Union. There weren't Jim Crow laws in the Soviet Union. And look at the Communist movement today. We are extremely anti-racist. We work with oppressed races and try to end discrimination. The vast majority of the new communist movement in Russia has learned from past mistakes, and I think they will be even better at dealing with race relations.

I never said the system was perfect, I'm saying that the Soviets managed to keep racism a lot quieter than it is in Russia now.
Yes, Soviet Union managed to keep people quiet.

In East Germany, nazism was completely destroyed.
Oh, it's exactly the other way around. It wasn't destroyed - it was entirely banned from public discourse and thanks to that managed to survive. Only now it is being destroyed.

Communism helps races cooperate and coexist. I think the best example of this is Yugoslavia. Look at what happened with the fall of communism.
Communism in Yugoslavia? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. Yugoslavia dropped the pretense of being communist long before the other "communist" countries. And what happened in Balkans was the explosion of hatred and blood feuds dating back to the II World War - problems that under Tito were simply silenced, not resolved.

I understand you see yourself a communist - how can you believe the former eastern block really tried to build communism if the workers IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY of it were silenced and oppressed if they dared to speak up for their rights openly? Have you not heard about the ridiculously high efficiency quotas for the workers that would shock even the most greedy capitalists? Have you not heard that when one failed to meet them his wage was reduced? Have you not heard about workers' riots in Poland in 1956 and 1970 caused by unfair taxation of the best workers, cutting the food supply and raising its prices?

I guess this might be news for you. I live in Poland and I have seen with my own eyes what "communism" has accomplished here. And I say... :headbang:
I say thank you. That's enough. Experiment failed.

I know the Soviet system failed. The original point of this thread was to argue about the future of Russia. But do people forget that the capitalist system has failed every time it is dismantled? Capitalist Russia is a mess.

I know the bureaucratic filth of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc was a bureaucratic mess, but it had its successes. You haven't killed Communism, you've killed Stalinism, and true Communists like us are forever greatful. We've learned from the past, and all influencial communist parties, including the CPRF, are devoted to democracy.

And as for political repression, I'm sorry to hear about the repression of freedoms in the Soviet Bloc, but I hate racism so much that I am glad to see it silenced. And well-known American radical Angela Davis remarked that East Germany was better at dismantling the nazi legacy. You think racism is really being dismantled now in the former Soviet Bloc? That is crazy.

You must understand that we know "communism" was horrible in the Soviet Bloc, but for many people, especially in Russia, capitalism is horrible as well. The revolutionary movements of the world will come to power again, but this time democratically.

And about Poland, it's not news for me, I know all about Solidarity. I've read that Solidarity was trusted more than the Party. But I've also read about how market reforms in Poland led to superficial success, that by the time "communism" collapsed, Poland had a huge public debt, due to loans from the West. I think the Soviet Bloc had a lacking form of socialism, but I do think they were building communism. I'm not sure how I feel about brining "communism" back to Eastern Europe, but it seems like Russia would benefit.

Really, you must understand that we're not a cruel group, that we know there were shortcomings. But what about the shortcomings of the new systems? We want a real, radical democracy, not bourgeois representatives or little Stalin's. Long live democracy and communism!

I know the Soviet system failed. The original point of this thread was to argue about the future of Russia. But do people forget that the capitalist system has failed every time it is dismantled? Capitalist Russia is a mess.

I know the bureaucratic filth of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc was a bureaucratic mess, but it had its successes. You haven't killed Communism, you've killed Stalinism, and true Communists like us are forever greatful. We've learned from the past, and all influencial communist parties, including the CPRF, are devoted to democracy.

And as for political repression, I'm sorry to hear about the repression of freedoms in the Soviet Bloc, but I hate racism so much that I am glad to see it silenced. And well-known American radical Angela Davis remarked that East Germany was better at dismantling the nazi legacy. You think racism is really being dismantled now in the former Soviet Bloc? That is crazy.

You must understand that we know "communism" was horrible in the Soviet Bloc, but for many people, especially in Russia, capitalism is horrible as well. The revolutionary movements of the world will come to power again, but this time democratically.


East Germany handled it's racism and nazism better? Are you fucking bullshitting me? Ever been to east Germany? At the last World Cup match the German govermnent told travel agency's to hand out flyers to foreigners to stay away from whole section of former East Berlin and various other parts of former eastern Germany since the police could not guarantee their safety.
Also there are many more Nazis in former east Germany than in the former west. Recently a known Nazi party actually made it into the state government and got representation. In which state was this? Saxony. Where is this state? Former East Germany.
Simply said, while the west through it's free speech and dialogue was able to largely rid itself of Nazism and racism, the east through it's ruthless suppression of any dialogue and forced silence merely pushed it beneath a layer and did not eliminate it. This shows now. Now that the stalinist forced silence is away it is blooming in full force. According to the Spiegel over 30% of East Germany's youth held right to far-right views.
Communism made a shithole out of East Germany. In my opinion the West shouldn't have taken them in. All they do is leech off the success and money of Western Germany. If someone tries to re-implement Communism into Germany again, all I know is I am burning my German passport and will apply for asylum to the only places where people with sane politics still exist (Canada, Uk or US [Northeast preferably though]). Since I saw what Communism did to east Germany, I have no wishes to live through that myself.

And about Poland, it's not news for me, I know all about Solidarity. I've read that Solidarity was trusted more than the Party. But I've also read about how market reforms in Poland led to superficial success, that by the time "communism" collapsed, Poland had a huge public debt, due to loans from the West. I think the Soviet Bloc had a lacking form of socialism, but I do think they were building communism. I'm not sure how I feel about brining "communism" back to Eastern Europe, but it seems like Russia would benefit.

Really, you must understand that we're not a cruel group, that we know there were shortcomings. But what about the shortcomings of the new systems? We want a real, radical democracy, not bourgeois representatives or little Stalin's. Long live democracy and communism!

Watch a bbc documentary about Russia sometime. Or even go on youtube and put in "Russia, nazi" or "Russia, neo-nazi" You will notice they won't be quiet about one thing. How insanely fast the neo-nazi scene in Russia is growing. The reports are actually quite intimidating. Especially when a member of Putin's cabinet called the neo-nazis a healthy reaction to the flood of foreigners polluting Russia.

In all honesty. I see a Fascist overthrow and a National Socialist government in Russia in the future before I see a return to Communism. The youth of Russia only remember the last days of Communism. The crackdowns, the despair, and the violence.

I never said the system was perfect, I'm saying that the Soviets managed to keep racism a lot quieter than it is in Russia now. In the Soviet Union, you would never see neo-nazis marching around the streets of Moscow. In East Germany, nazism was completely destroyed. Communism helps races cooperate and coexist. I think the best example of this is Yugoslavia. Look at what happened with the fall of communism. And yes, there were oppressed races within the Soviet Union, but in case you haven't noticed, there are oppressed races in the United States now. There weren't lynch mobs in the Soviet Union. There wasn't slavery in the Soviet Union. There weren't Jim Crow laws in the Soviet Union. And look at the Communist movement today. We are extremely anti-racist. We work with oppressed races and try to end discrimination. The vast majority of the new communist movement in Russia has learned from past mistakes, and I think they will be even better at dealing with race relations.

The main reason rascism was quiet was because of Stalinism. The old Russian empire wasn't just a few races thrown together, like the US, but entire nations. Stalin intergrated them by force, and was swift to punish any rebellion. Additionally, he displaced many people from their homelands (moving Ukrainians and Germans to Central Asia, for instance), and his cult of personality ensured that he was more important than any nation. The system started crumbling after his death, and its complete collapse was one of the main reasons that the USSR imploded.

Also there are many more Nazis in former east Germany than in the former west. Recently a known Nazi party actually made it into the state government and got representation. In which state was this? Saxony. Where is this state? Former East Germany.

A lot of that is economic, though, rather than any outcome of Communism itself. If East Germany's integration in to the West had been more effective, or if the Communist system had been dismantled more gradually than it was, the problem of neo-Nazism probably would not be as severe as it is now. It also didn't help that the economy of West Germany was, relatively speaking, not strong enough to easily integrate a totally different economic system in to its own. That worsened the situation even more than it was.

It's almost always economic issues that motivate extremism of this sort; fascists convince people that their system offers economic and social stability, and desperate people are drawn to it.

A lot of that is economic, though, rather than any outcome of Communism itself. If East Germany's integration in to the West had been more effective, or if the Communist system had been dismantled more gradually than it was, the problem of neo-Nazism probably would not be as severe as it is now. It also didn't help that the economy of West Germany was, relatively speaking, not strong enough to easily integrate a totally different economic system in to its own. That worsened the situation even more than it was.

It's almost always economic issues that motivate extremism of this sort; fascists convince people that their system offers economic and social stability, and desperate people are drawn to it.

Can you tell me a nation of 63 million that could without any problems accept 17 million people in one blow. 17 million poor people, with no real economy to speak of. That is almost 1/3 of the western population that was simply unified,.....
That it worked to some degree for the past 15+ years is surprising enough for me.

Well to play the devil's advocate. Who has delivered more to their promises the Fascist of Communist during their times in power? If I remember right Hitler , a Fascist brought Germany out of depression and anarchy, making it into an economical powerhouse again. Franco had the 60's economic boom.
Now Socialist had similar or perhaps even better success then Fascist did. The afterwar recovery of Germany. France after the war, etc..
However comparing the extremes, Fascist with Communist, all Communism did was leave economically wrecked nations whereas Fascism left Spain economically strong and independent to name one.

Can you tell me a nation of 63 million that could without any problems accept 17 million people in one blow. 17 million poor people, with no real economy to speak of. That is almost 1/3 of the western population that was simply unified,.....That it worked to some degree for the past 15+ years is surprising enough for me.

But compared to other states, like the Baltic, Czech, and Slovak republics its integration has been far more difficult. These states all have highly developed and rapidly growing economies despite a similar starting situation.

Well to play the devil's advocate. Who has delivered more to their promises the Fascist of Communist during their times in power? If I remember right Hitler , a Fascist brought Germany out of depression and anarchy, making it into an economical powerhouse again. Franco had the 60's economic boom.

And Stalin turned the Soviet Union from a backward, undeveloped nation in ruins to the second largest industrial power on Earth while still managing to defeat Nazi Germany and become the second atomic power in existence. The Communist economies of Eastern Europe rebuilt themselves from the war in record time and posed a serious economic challenge to the west as late as the mid 1970's.

Fascism failed in Germany and only succeeded in Spain because Franco mismanaged the economy so badly during the post-Civil War period that reforms were successfully forced in to place which moved away from fascist economics.

However comparing the extremes, Fascist with Communist, all Communism did was leave economically wrecked nations whereas Fascism left Spain economically strong and independent to name one.

And that was because Franco moved away from fascism towards a free-market system. Had he maintained the policies used under fascism, his country would have never seen the economic improvement that it did.

Alright, then. *grabs*

Idiot, Siberian Russia is a huge mass of untapped resources: gold, oil, diamonds. Russia would be stupid to give up claim to it, especially since the land will instantly be claimed by either China or the US.

resourses are not always beneficial, Africa is resource rich, yet it is poor, the fact is, if a country has these resources, i.e. oil, it takes alot of money to develop it, then extraction is just low paid labour intensive jobs, not very good for development, the countrys growth becomes very sensitive to the prices of these resources, also the sudden discovery of resources leads to a de-industrialisation due to how the new resources affect the exchange rate, affecting major export industries (it would also make vodka more expense, gasp).

But compared to other states, like the Baltic, Czech, and Slovak republics its integration has been far more difficult. These states all have highly developed and rapidly growing economies despite a similar starting situation.



And Stalin turned the Soviet Union from a backward, undeveloped nation in ruins to the second largest industrial power on Earth while still managing to defeat Nazi Germany and become the second atomic power in existence. The Communist economies of Eastern Europe rebuilt themselves from the war in record time and posed a serious economic challenge to the west as late as the mid 1970's.

Fascism failed in Germany and only succeeded in Spain because Franco mismanaged the economy so badly during the post-Civil War period that reforms were successfully forced in to place which moved away from fascist economics.



And that was because Franco moved away from fascism towards a free-market system. Had he maintained the policies used under fascism, his country would have never seen the economic improvement that it did.


1) Point taken.

2) First in the Russian civil war 15+ million died when many of the "proletariat" fought with every bone they had in their body to fight the reds. And later Stalin went over the corpses of another 20+ million (gulags, executions, etc..) people to achieve his communist state. Is that an acceptable price for communism for you, roughly 35+ million people dead in a 50 year period? Another 1,000,000 people, known as the White emigres, fled Russia - many with General Wrangel, some through the Far East, others fled west into the newly independent Baltic countries in order to escape the ravages of the war, the famine, or the rule of either warring faction. These émigrés included a large part of the educated and skilled population. Meaning not only did the Reds through trying to force their ideology down everyones throat bleed the country dry, they chased away most of the educated and adeptly skilled Russians.

I could of course add Lenin's transgressions and crimes such as that of instigating the red terror resulting in the execution of over 200,000 civilians. Telegram from Lenin himself;

11 VIII 1918 Send to Penza To Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volosts must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, because we have now before us our final decisive battle "with the kulaks." We need to set an example. 1) You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the public sees) at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take away all of their grain. 4) Select hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way, that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let's choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this. Yours, Lenin P.S. Use your toughest people for this

When Kamenev and Bukharin tried to curb the "excesses" of the Cheka in late 1918, it was Lenin who defended it. On and on. Point is that about every Russian communist was drenched in blood. I somehow cannot see how this is supposed to be good? Killing so many people that would it have been France 1/2 the population would not be there. Also why not add the tens of millions Mao killed in establishing his communist regime.
Call me over cautious. But simply because of all this I am not too turned on by people stating we should retry this. Didn't enough people die last time around? Perhaps the intentions are good. However I don't have the necessary faith in humanity to see it ending much different then last time with tens of millions dying. And capitalism with all it's faults didn't produce such large death counts in it's implementation and upkeep. Couldn't it simply be easier for those who are diehard communist to go to Cuba or perhaps buy some land far up in Canada or elsewhere and start their ideal community instead of testing fate again by opening such a bloody page of history again. A very bloody page in history full of suffering, destruction, despair and death. I am simply of the pragmatic attitude, that something should simply be left to lie down and not brought back to life.

And about Poland, it's not news for me, I know all about Solidarity. I've read that Solidarity was trusted more than the Party. But I've also read about how market reforms in Poland led to superficial success, that by the time "communism" collapsed, Poland had a huge public debt, due to loans from the West.

By the way, do you mean those loans taken by Communist government in the 70's, or some other I don't know of? ;)

Really, you must understand that we're not a cruel group, that we know there were shortcomings. But what about the shortcomings of the new systems? We want a real, radical democracy, not bourgeois representatives or little Stalin's. Long live democracy and communism!

:sigh: Look, I'm sure you have the best intentions. However you can't have communism AND democracy, because the moment you let the people decide what's best for them they are going to vote that from now on you can make pottery and sell it for profit (in other words, holding the means of production is legal) and you can pay your neighbour for helping you make pottery (employing other people is legal). Or other such heresy.
And if you buy this land in Canada and try to build communism, for Marx sake use the former "communist" countries as a negative example.
EDIT: Oh, I checked out the Communist Party of the Russian Federation you mentioned. That means I went to their website and I read their programme brief http://www.kprf.ru/party/info/. Surprise! They are not bulding communism, just socialism. But they claim their goal is to "build the society on principles of collectivism" and to "promote the rule of the people through the Soviets [councils]". That means that they are democratic until they take over, then it's "rule of the Soviets" we all know and love.

By the way, do you mean those loans taken by Communist government in the 70's, or some other I don't know of? ;)
What's funny, the Gierek administration didn't spend this money on tanks or Party needs. He bought for it social peace (fueling consumption) and invested it in various industrial and technological enterprises. Unfortunately state bureaucrats suck at investing.

If the Party program was translated into English, then you might expect to have things lost in translation. Words like socialism and collectivism may have heavier meanings. And why are you complaining about Soviets? The early revolutionary soviets were extremely democratic, grassroots organizations. Only when Lenin (through necessity) and Stalin (through lust for power) turned the Soviets into all-Bolshevik bureaucratic machines did the system of revolutionary democracy die.

About the Polish loans, it shows that the pro-market factions of the Communist Party decided to rely on the market and the West, and huge public debt resulted.

Communism can and will be grounded in democracy, our model for government is the Paris Commune, and when people start being far-sighted, then they will realize the free market isn't sustainable.

If the Party program was translated into English, then you might expect to have things lost in translation.
You didn't bother to click the link? How disappointing (well not really). It's in Russian. I can read Russian. I studied for a year in the real, living, breathing Soviet Union and lived there for four years.

The early revolutionary soviets were extremely democratic, grassroots organizations. Only when Lenin (through necessity) and Stalin (through lust for power) turned the Soviets into all-Bolshevik bureaucratic machines did the system of revolutionary democracy die.
And I fear that's exactly what would happen if someone tried that again. As to extremely democratic, explain how can they be democratic if they are in fact controlled by the Party. Because if they are not controlled, the foudations of communism would be soon undermined by various silly ideas the people have about freedom.

when people start being far-sighted, then they will realize the free market isn't sustainable.
Leaving aside the whole issue of unsustainability of the free market, how to make people far-sighted? By giving everyone a pair of glasses? Sorry for being sarcastic, but the whole idea of communism hinges on such unfounded assumptions about changing the human nature. Humans are rather shortsighted and look to their own interests first. Anyone who doesn't see that is a fool. Anyone who tries to govern people ignoring that is dangerous.

About the Polish loans, it shows that the pro-market factions of the Communist Party decided to rely on the market and the West,
They did not. That's the main reason of the fiasco. The party economists decided what is to be produced, in what quantites, where to sold it and for how much.

You didn't bother to click the link? How disappointing (well not really). It's in Russian. I can read Russian. I studied for a year in the real, living, breathing Soviet Union and lived there for four years.
Lol. I love the eastern bloc sometimes. :p

The eastern bloke loves you right back :fluffle:. But is nevertheless curious what's the exact reason of that sudden affection. ;)

Even if the link is in Russian, like I said, words like socialism have heavier meanings than the typical Scandinavian state. And I did not contradict myself when calling the early soviets democratic organs, did you not read the part about Lenin turning them into Party institutions? "Human nature" changes all the time. Go into the streets now, and most people would say slavery is unacceptable. Go back two hundred years, and most people would probablly be for it. Wasn't slavery a major economic institution? I don't see the jump from, say, a feudal society to a capitalist society any bigger than I see the jump from capitalism to socialism.

This is my source regarding Polish loans:

http://spark.communist-party.ca/html/ZIAD.html