Viker
Häxan
Only in spirit. They operate like the Mafia. Putin benefits, they benefit.... enemies get smashed like bugs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Russia Still Socialist?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Czarism has its resemblance to socialism, eh.
He's a leader who controls the means of production.
It's just only as needed, rather than micro-managing
of conventional socialism.
The Mafia differs in that they operate only
in segments of the economy. Putin has
control over all of it.
It is understandable...
Nevertheless...Russia did spend that money on welfare. There is evidence. We are speaking of a G8 country.
Even non-G8 countries have schools & hospitals.It is understandable...
Nevertheless...Russia did spend that money on welfare. There is evidence. We are speaking of a G8 country.
Russia differs from most by violent conquering neighbors.
Viker
Häxan
A proper manager delegates. Even dictators and Czars have lackies under their slithery bellies. It's not laissez faire but it's not Lenin either. So Putin is fascist dictator/new Czar/God Father. I think he's watched too many western movies.
Surely. In fact it is really clamorous how they took a military decision.
That step should have never been taken.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Your obsession with socialism is blinding you to the broader historical narratives at play here, I think.
Or not enuf.
He should watch High Noon.
Calling this heinous war a "military decision"
deserves a <funny> rating. But the mods
might disapprove.
Oh, you want to make me the issue, eh.
No...that would be ad hominem whataboutism.
So it's not permitted.
This thread is about how Soviet socialism might've
continued under Putin in the modified form of
total control that is only exercised when business
owners stray from political correctness.
The threat to nationalize a bank by fiat shows who
owns it in reality.
Last edited:
I think that Putin will be replaced by another president, someday.
But the 52% of Gazprom will remain in the hands of the Russian Treasury.
So as Dante said in his Inferno...abandon all hope, dear banking elites who want that gas.
Audie
Veteran Member
Kleptocracy, fascist, socialist
communist, whatever such labels
one applies to Russia and Nk,
the government is a criminal
enterprise.
Ideology is just window dressing.
Leaders always come & go.
But Putin might determine who replaces him.
This is so when he goes under the knife soon (surgery).
Putin's replacement (Patrushev) looks no better for Ukraine.
There are 2 kinds of ideology...
1) The kind that underlies what happens.
2) The kind that is claimed for public consumption.
IOW, you are what you do, not what you say.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Putin is happy to exploit the remaining apparatus of state from the communist era (note the distinction) to consolidate his power (and wealth). Trying to shoehorn socialism into the conversation appears both irrational and obsessive. And miles out.
Someone has a bee under his bonnet.
Take a look at the thread's title...notice the question mark?
It's about discussing elements of socialism that survived
the demise of the Soviet Union.
@Estro Felino answered affirmatively, yet you don't attack
her for taking a stand far stronger than I have. Perhaps cuz
she is pro-socialist & I'm anti that you're miffed?
I recommend examining the level of economic control
that Putin has, eg, the ability to nationalize any company
he chooses if they don't toe the line.
Last edited:
Yazata
Active Member
I Russia still socialist? That depends on how we define "socialist", doesn't it?
My own opinion is that these kind of words, so vague in their precise meaning and so loaded with emotional connotations, aren't very helpful.
Russia seems to me to best approximate the old late 19th century German/Prussian model. This was a system in which private enterprise was encouraged, but steered by the government so as to achieve ends deemed to be of national importance. In Prussia that was basically the needs of the military. So Germany developed heavy industry so as to better foster war production, it built up Europe's best rail system, so as to move military material, and it developed a strong banking system to fund it all. Private enterprise was encouraged to innovate and was rewarded lavishly if it did so successfully. Economically speaking, Hitler's Reich was basically just an attempt to restore that successful 19th century system and Germany's rapid resurgence in the 1930's was evidence that it worked.
Today China is probably the best example of that system in practice. And that's the direction that I see Russia taking.
Whether somebody chooses to call it "socialism" or "fascism" is largely irrelevant in my opinion, merely an expression of whether or not the speaker approves.
My own opinion is that these kind of words, so vague in their precise meaning and so loaded with emotional connotations, aren't very helpful.
Russia seems to me to best approximate the old late 19th century German/Prussian model. This was a system in which private enterprise was encouraged, but steered by the government so as to achieve ends deemed to be of national importance. In Prussia that was basically the needs of the military. So Germany developed heavy industry so as to better foster war production, it built up Europe's best rail system, so as to move military material, and it developed a strong banking system to fund it all. Private enterprise was encouraged to innovate and was rewarded lavishly if it did so successfully. Economically speaking, Hitler's Reich was basically just an attempt to restore that successful 19th century system and Germany's rapid resurgence in the 1930's was evidence that it worked.
Today China is probably the best example of that system in practice. And that's the direction that I see Russia taking.
Whether somebody chooses to call it "socialism" or "fascism" is largely irrelevant in my opinion, merely an expression of whether or not the speaker approves.
Last edited:
But...even if Putin throughout the 21st century had never dared invade or annex any territory, he still would have been considered an enemy of the wealthiest banking dynasties of the planet.
So...if Patrushev was the most peaceful president on Earth, these elites would still hate him and Russia for keeping all that wealth and resources which they crave for.
Last edited:
As many here know, I use dictionary definitions.
Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
1 a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
As we can see, there is little ambiguity here. The
question arises with the extent of "ownership and
control". Those last 2 terms are closely related.