Military Review

Cultural Russian words about democracy. H. 2

152



So, as we found out in the previous article, effective management of something is based on three “must”:

1. The manager must be professional in the field that is taken to manage - knowledge of the nuances of the profession / industry will help him to make the right decisions;

2. The manager must be well versed in people - it is necessary for the selection of the team. Today, the amount of human knowledge is so great that a manager cannot be equally competent in all areas of activity even of a small enterprise. Accordingly, he has to trust the management of individual processes to those who are more professional in these processes. Thus, the manager is forced to select and manage the activities of people who are more professional in their specialization than he, and only the ability to understand people well can help him in this;

3. The manager should be motivated to "work feats" in the field of management, because in the absence of incentives to do his job well, you can just relax and let the process take its course.

Without any doubt, in any country she herself is the most difficult object of management. Therefore, the ability to understand people is a key ability of the president, because he is forced to manage the most complex branches of human activity, having the most superficial understanding of most of them (there is no person who would be somewhat professional in medicine, military affairs, foreign policy, economics, science, education, etc. simultaneously).

At the same time, neither professionalism nor the ability to understand people is the prerogative of elites. Accordingly, to ensure the best governance of the country, “social lifts” are very important - “the road to power” (up to the supreme) talented people from non-elite classes of society. Today, democracy offers the best opportunities for social elevators, but not everywhere, but only in countries that have a multi-party system. Why?

Because where there are two (or more) political forces that will never unite into one, but are not strong enough to destroy their opponents, a kind of competition arises where the parties mutually control each other, preventing them from cheating. with the election procedure or to provide the public with an “election” of one candidate (when the rest are deliberately incapable of taking an elected office).

In the Russian Federation, alas, democracy does not work too well: as has been said before, even among those who unconditionally support the current president of the country, there are few who would be completely satisfied with the situation in the economy, medicine, education, etc. V.V. Putin is supported by many, but, for example, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, does not have such a level of national trust, his rating falls - even according to Levada Center, this is something that says so.

All this testifies to the fact that not the most capable people in the management are in the hierarchy of power, which means that our “social elevators” do not work as well as we would like. Accordingly, we have two options - either to bring the country's political system into a state in which democracy would be effective, or else completely abandon democracy in favor of a different political regime that would ensure the best quality of governing the country.

Let's look at both options.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (although the latter is unlikely), today there is one ruling party in the Russian Federation, and this party is United Russia. No, no doubt, there are Communists, the Liberal Democratic Party, and so on, but the point is that even brought together, they do not have even a quarter of the possibilities and influence of United Russia. These parties have no political, personnel, administrative resources, which very well characterize the election results both to the State Duma in 2016 and to the presidents of the Russian Federation in 2018. In the first case, the most significant party after the “United Russia” (KPRF) received 42 seats from 450, and its presidential candidate (P. Grudinin) scored 11,8%. Someone will say (to himself, or in the comments) that, they say, the election results were falsified, but the fact is that the fact of falsification (if it had the place to be) characterizes the weakness of our party system, since I would say that the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party and so on. do not have sufficient resources to ensure fair elections.

So what is there to do? To order members of the United Russia party to pay for the “first-second”, all the “second” parties to allocate to the new party, say, “Great Russia”, and order them to compete with each other? So after all, nothing will come of it. The whole question is in the absence of the subject of competition - it is possible to divide the "United Russia" even into two, at least twenty-two parties, but the fact is that after that it will be much more common and easier for them to agree among themselves.



Indeed, in order to compete, parties must have different goals and the will to achieve them. Where did the irreconcilable enmity of the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States come from? Recall that the democratic party grew out of the elite of the South of the country, while the Republicans are the party of the North. Between these elites is the blood of the US civil war. Let us imagine for a moment that after our civil war in Russia, we would miraculously establish democracy and parliament, and half of the parliament would come from the white movement and sympathizers, and the second half would be communists ... That would be something similar But even this analogy is far from fully reflecting the depth of the watershed between Democrats and US Republicans, because the American South, by and large, remained agrarian, the North was inclined towards technical development, that is, apart from politics, there were also serious economic contradictions between them. And social, because the ideas of equality have always been close to the North, while the South has always had racial inequality.

Well, for all the years of its existence, United Russia was unable to formulate a program of goals for its existence, not to mention (at least for themselves) about their implementation ... Members of United Russia and Great Russia ”will simply not have grounds for competition and, alas, will not create their directives.

Thus, it is bad or good, but we do not have a multiparty system on the model and likeness of the United States or England and in the foreseeable future will not. But ... theoretically, we can build something that can completely replace it. For this, it is necessary to find powerful and roughly equivalent forces that would have obviously opposite interests - and give them political weight. And we have such strength in general.

If we do not have parties competing with each other, then we have competing departments fighting for budgetary preferences and funding. Accordingly, it would be possible to try to build a system of public administration on the sectoral principle. Let's try to clarify the idea on a comic example.

What is the ministry of health today? The state structure, accustomed to take under the hood, after listening to the instructions of the leadership. But let's try to imagine medicine, which has become an independent political force. She has her own program, based on clear, measurable indicators that look like this: “Today, the mortality rate on 1000 people we have is this, and funding per year is this. Give us so much and so much, and we will be able to open such and such a number of clinics, increase the number of existing doctors by that, order and finance such research in the field of medicine, etc. “And as a result, by the end of the year, we guarantee a reduction in mortality by so many and so many.” And no less politicized scientists oppose them: “Today we receive such and such financing and solve such and such problems, they will be solved in such a certain period. Give us more so much so that we build a tar collider in addition to the hadron one, and then in a year we will create a gravitapup for a route taxi to Mars! ” Farmers echo them: “Today, in all stores, domestic watermelons are sold year-round. Reduce the income tax for us on 1%, and in a year we will be able to cross a watermelon with cockroaches, so that when cutting watermelon, the seeds themselves would run into the trash can! ”

Dear reader, of course, can say that they say all of the above (I would like to believe!) And so it happens at the stages of the formation and approval of the budget of the Russian Federation. And what can give publicity here?

And that's what. Imagine that the ministries and departments submitted their wishes and proposals, the president chose, the budget was formed, and within the framework of this formed budget, each ministry and department assumed certain obligations. In our example, medicine received the requested amounts, but science and agriculture did not. A year has passed, the money has been spent, the ministries report. Medicine reports that the goals were not just achieved, but over-fulfilled - hospitals were built, as much as they had promised, and the death rate was reduced even more than the promised. Well done! The scientists did not receive the money, they did not build the tar collider, they did not open the gravitapup. But those tasks that were taken to solve at the current level of financing were solved. Not bad either - they fulfilled their plan, albeit without overfulfilment. But the farmers did not get the money, they didn’t cross the watermelon with the cockroaches, and even watermelons didn’t have to be reared, so they had to buy them abroad. Poor fellow farmers worked! And it can be seen all over Russia.

In other words, it is not so difficult to set the basic tasks for each industry (ten, not more) so that they are understandable to the general population. We accepted the budget, received the assignments, a year has passed - we reported on the implementation and it is already clearly visible who worked well and who did not. But why all this is necessary? In the end, it’s like it’s like the case of the president and the government to figure out who worked and how, to punish the innocent, to encourage the uncomplicated ... or vice versa?

But let us imagine that when the next presidential elections come, each industry nominates its own candidate. And we choose from them. That is, over the course of 6 years, we see which industry has fulfilled its obligations, and which is not, we evaluate the weight of words of certain leaders ... And we make our choice.

But what about the military, the police, diplomats, etc.? After all, no one bothers them to act in the same way - to coordinate their tasks with the current president and then report back on their execution. And nominate presidential candidates from their ranks. Of course, here at every step there are a lot of difficulties (well, for example, but what about secrecy?), But all this can be foreseen - besides this, it should be understood that in the format of a small article it is in principle impossible to paint all the nuances of the state administration, therefore The author is limited only to key, fundamental differences from existing systems.

Another variant. It is no secret that society is always in a stratification - it consists of various social classes. And we, probably, could build our political structure not on a party basis, but, say, on estate representation. Whatever one may say, but the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are “slightly” different, the being and values ​​of “office plankton” “a little” do not coincide with the lives of military officers, etc. You can try to turn the class in an organized force, and choose the president and the representatives of the State Duma from the candidates nominated class. Or some kind of combination is possible when the State Duma is formed according to the estate principle (with an equal number of votes from each class), and the administration of the country — according to the “sectoral” method.

It is clear that all this is not easy and controversial, but the essence is that if we want democracy to work in our country, we must find within the country such forces whose interests are in conflict, but which cannot destroy or devour each other the bourgeoisie devour the working class, or doctors cannot devour scientists). Then it is necessary to give them political weight and make them compete with each other, even under conditions when the results of this competition would be measurable and understandable to the majority of the population. They need to be given the right and the duty to nominate a presidential candidate from their environment and it is clear that such an opportunity will strongly motivate the industry’s leadership or the representation of the estate for competition. Then democracy in our country will work quite well.

And if we don’t want democracy at all and want to build state governance without it?

Then everything is much more complicated. To begin with, none of the previously existing political systems of the state worked better than the modern democratic one. We will not seriously disassemble the shortcomings of the primitive communal and slaveholding system (I suppose that none of the respected readers would like to go there, although ... someone might not have refused a village of fifty souls). Feudalism? This is fragmentation, remember the axiom: “My vassal's vassal is not my vassal”? These are internal squabbles and civil strife, and in today's world it is a direct road to the landfill. Stories. Recall that all the “orange revolutions” and other “Arab springs” are based on the use of “blind” protest masses who are ready to put a saucepan on their heads for the sake of “a better world” —but under feudalism such masses are always in abundance. Maybe absolute monarchy? Generally speaking, this form of government is very powerful ... if at the head of the state is a really strong and energetic monarch. The problem is that “monarchical power”, alas, is not inherited, and therefore one strong sovereign had a lot of average or weak. The Russian Empire was ruled by 14 emperors and empresses (before Peter the Great were kings, earlier - princes, but we do not consider them), and those of them whose actions crashed into the people's memory, those who are considered real leaders, are only three: Peter the Great, Catherine II and Alexander III - and that, about Peter I argue a lot today. Although I would add to this list also Alexander I, under whom Napoleon was defeated, but there will be even more disputes over him. Total, at best, four out of fourteen: for one strong sovereign there are two and a half “so-so” monarchs. Is it any wonder that after almost two hundred years of imperialism, Russia had, in comparison with other countries, only the fifth most powerful industry and not the most outstanding scientific potential? In general, there is not a single reason why we could assume that autocracy will give our society better social elevators than those we have now, and historical parallels do not inspire optimism. So autocracy disappears as well.

A constitutional monarchy? The same problems as with the absolute - it is absolutely incomprehensible that it will give us the best social elevators in this system. In addition, a constitutional monarchy is of two kinds - it is a parliamentary monarchy, when a country, in fact, is ruled not by the king, but by the prime minister. But in this case it is not too clear, why do we need a monarch?

In theory, such a monarch could play the role of a counterweight to the too great powers of the one elected prime minister, but ... the problem is that two bears do not get along in a den. Never anywhere else. And therefore, in modern parliamentary monarchies (England!), The role of the Sovereign is reduced to purely nominal and representative - he "reigns but does not rule." Of course, in theory, it would be nice to create some kind of alternative to the current prime minister, president, secretary general, etc., in order to motivate the latter for more efficient management. But in practice such a dualism is extremely dangerous - in the army they know very well that one bad commander is better than two good ones, and this is where a system comes in where the highest executive power turns out to be distributed between two strong people.

There is still a dualistic monarchy - when the monarch has executive power, and the legislature - the parliament, but the problem is that usually the century of such monarchies is very short. This is Germany (1871 — 1918) and Japan (1890 — 1947) —in general, not the best ideal role model, is it? At the same time, as in the case of absolute monarchy, the effectiveness of such a system will strongly depend on the personality of the monarch, while, as we see, among monarchs, truly worthy leaders are an infrequent phenomenon.

What else? Anarchy? Brrr, 90-e remember well, thank you, but not in this life. And not in the next one. Dictatorship? Well, the one-party system is so very close to that. Aristocracy? So we already have a ruling class - the bourgeoisie, "the aristocrats of the 90's." Under Yeltsin, this "nobility" almost led to the disintegration of the country.

Something completely new that has never happened before? Alas, the author is not so brilliant as to come up with a new social system, which has no analogues in history, but he will be grateful for any comments on this subject.

So where should Russia go? The answer, in fact, is very simple and lies on the surface. In what period of its development has the country achieved its greatest success? What state system made us a superpower? Under what political regime two such simple words: “Moscow says!” Performed by Yuri Levitan could make entire continents flinch?

USSR and socialism

But you need to remember something else - yes, socialism really led us to the scientific, political, economic heights, but he also threw us from there into the dirt and game of 90's. Socialism raised our state as high as we never rose under princes and kings - but it turned out to be the shortest political system in the history of our state. And therefore we should carefully study the experience of the USSR and understand what moved us forward and up, and what led to stagnation and death. But if there is a state structure that could be more effective for our country than the existing forms of Western democracies, then this will be a certain, improved form of socialism, it is possible, by the way, that it is mixed with democratic methods.



To be continued?

I do not know. Let's look at the response that this article will trigger. If the continuation of this topic will be interesting to the VO community, then why not?
Author:
Articles from this series:
Cultural Russian words about democracy
152 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard April 11 2018 05: 40
    +5
    Democracy is certainly good ... But what is interesting ... The scientific developments that were made under Stalin and Hitler are still relevant ... with that?
    1. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx April 11 2018 05: 49
      +8
      Quote: Vard
      Democracy is certainly good ... But what is interesting ... The scientific developments that were made under Stalin and Hitler are still relevant ... with that?

      it’s you somewhere in the wrong place ... the scientific discoveries made in ancient Greece are still relevant (the law of Archimedes, for example).
    2. populist
      populist April 11 2018 06: 15
      +1
      In the Russian Federation, alas, democracy does not work too well

      Democracy is certainly good ... But

      Democracy in the Russian Federation almost does not work No. And this is very bad. crying Democracy has been absolutely necessary since the 60s of the 20th century. But among the masses of the people there is neither an understanding of the need for democracy, nor even an idea of ​​what democracy is. Therefore, talking about democracy is extremely important. hi
      1. Same lech
        Same lech April 11 2018 06: 21
        0
        Therefore, talking about democracy is extremely important. hi


        Of course it’s important ... it's like telling people about a carrot in front of a donkey’s nose.
        Our realities are completely different from the realities in countries with Western democracy.
        1. Vladivostok1969
          Vladivostok1969 April 11 2018 06: 26
          +4
          Democracy means choice. And the choice is influenced by the responsibility of the authorities, which we don’t have.
          1. Same lech
            Same lech April 11 2018 06: 31
            +4
            Democracy means choice.

            The choice can also be made in a golden cage while in prison ... so democracy in my opinion is something like a desert mirage FATA MORGAN ...
            come closer and there is a dummy.
            First of all, you need to think about the well-being of ordinary citizens ... and not about mythical democracy, hiding behind which as a fig leaf, some exceptional nations imagined themselves to be the crowning glory of the evolution of human society.
            1. Vladivostok1969
              Vladivostok1969 April 11 2018 06: 35
              0
              First of all, you need to think about the well-being of ordinary citizens ... and not about mythical democracy, hiding behind which, as a fig leaf, some exceptional nations have imagined themselves to be the crown of evolution of human society ..

              Probably you haven’t read it to the end. And to whom the authorities should be responsible, I’m sure you understand hi
              1. Same lech
                Same lech April 11 2018 06: 39
                +5
                And to whom the government should be responsible sure sure hi

                smile Power is a dangerous thing ... even in a democratic society ... and the prolonged power of one person or party is doubly dangerous ... and the responsibility of the authorities to the people does not prevent the authorities from creating undercover deeds behind the backs of the people.
                1. Vladivostok1969
                  Vladivostok1969 April 11 2018 06: 44
                  +3
                  and the responsibility of the authorities to the people does not prevent the authorities from creating undercover deeds behind the back of the people

                  This clearly proves the lack of responsibility. But we did not have democracy, no, but do I need it, I don’t know? hi
                2. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 April 11 2018 07: 10
                  +3
                  Quote: The same LYOKHA
                  and the continued power of one person or party is doubly dangerous.

                  Except in cases of hereditary monarchy. Residents of a rented apartment are always worse off than their own. hi
                  1. Freeman
                    Freeman April 11 2018 17: 22
                    +1
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    Quote: The same LYOKHA
                    and the continued power of one person or party is doubly dangerous.

                    Except in cases of hereditary monarchy. Residents of a rented apartment are always worse off than their own. hi

                    After us even the flood- Marquise de Pompadour.
                    The phrase of the favorite also became the personification of the destructive wastefulness of the financial policy of Louis XV, which left Louis XVI a legacy of a country on the verge of bankruptcy.
                    1. Ingvar 72
                      Ingvar 72 April 11 2018 17: 33
                      0
                      What did Gorbachev and Yeltsin leave behind? wink
                      1. Freeman
                        Freeman April 11 2018 20: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Ingvar 72
                        What did Gorbachev and Yeltsin leave behind? wink

                        They fully provided for their relatives (one “less”, another “more”).
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 April 11 2018 07: 08
            +1
            Quote: Vladivostok1969
            Democracy Means Choice

            This is utopia, not more. Carrot for donkey.
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid April 11 2018 06: 30
        +6
        Unfortunately, I missed the first article. I’ll read it, I’ll re-read this one. So far I can say one thing ----- it is written in the article: "" Socialism has thrown into the dirt and game "" That's not socialism !!!!! This is a substitution of concepts. !!!!! I would say ---- a coup, or an anti-coup, which is more correct? Nyverg.
        Before our socialism, there were no other similar countries. But capitalism was not instantly created and strengthened all over the world? In about 200 years. And there were a lot of opponents. But socialism has much more antagonism and they are more powerful.
        I think HE will be back .....
        1. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx April 11 2018 07: 32
          +4
          Quote: Reptiloid
          I would say ---- a coup, or an anti-coup, which is more correct?

          Counterrevolution is more correct. In the 17th there was a revolution, and in the late 80s - early 90s, a counter-revolution took place.
          Quote: Reptiloid
          I think HE will be back

          And I'm sure of that. If only because socialism is the most effective system of all existing and existing. And rollbacks, regression, this has happened before. The new did not always immediately prevail over the old. As you rightly noted, "and capitalism was not instantly created and strengthened around the world."
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid April 11 2018 08: 41
            +1
            Only, in my opinion, about terms, think out. What happened in the 90s — painstakingly, deliberately, for more than 30 years — was preparing a counter-revolutionary coup.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 11 2018 12: 14
          +6
          Quote: Reptiloid
          That's not socialism !!!!! This is a substitution of concepts. !!!!! I would say ---- a coup, or an anti-coup, which is more correct? Nyverg.

          Alas, a coup d'état is successful only when it has all the prerequisites. In the USSR of the 80's, they were everything - the total decomposition of the CPSU, the economic crisis, the loss of faith of the bulk of the citizens in state ideology, etc. etc.
          1. victor50
            victor50 April 11 2018 14: 06
            +5
            It seems to me that no one advocated capitalism then. The question was to edit socialism (remember - socialism with a human face, market socialism). They did not think that all this would lead to capitalism, the majority did not think and did not suspect.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 11 2018 14: 15
              +5
              Quote: victor50
              It seems to me that no one advocated capitalism then.

              First, yes, perestroika, acceleration ... And then they turned to capitalism, sang the odes of competition and the invisible hand of the market - this was before the collapse of the USSR. Prepared for privatization starting from 1989
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid April 12 2018 05: 34
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: victor50
                It seems to me that no one advocated capitalism then.

                First, yes, perestroika, acceleration ... And then they turned to capitalism, sang the odes of competition and the invisible hand of the market - this was before the collapse of the USSR. Prepared for privatization starting from 1989

                I read about the slogan of Gorbachev ---- MORE SOCIALISM! It was under such slogans that there was a departure from socialism. Although, probably, someone understood or expected that "" the dog rummaged here, "" A Russian writer-philosopher and desident Zinoviev called the perestroika a disaster.
      3. ammunition
        ammunition April 12 2018 04: 54
        +1
        Quote: populist
        Democracy in the Russian Federation almost does not work. And this is very bad.

        Democracy is the power of the American people! With that not all of the american people ..
        -----------------
        Well, that this .. democracy is not working here.
  2. Vladivostok1969
    Vladivostok1969 April 11 2018 06: 07
    +6
    Andrey. Thank you for your articles. Some of them are interesting to read, while others make you think. hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 12: 15
      0
      And thank you!:)
  3. K.A.S.
    K.A.S. April 11 2018 07: 06
    +2
    Socialism raised our power as high as we never rose under princes and kings
    Paper can stand it! I wonder how other countries without socialism rose even higher! And could you give specific examples! For example, I believe that Tsarist Russia has achieved no less success, only this was done without jerks and tears!
    And what to study in the experience of the Soviet Union? How to rob and destroy your country, or how did the Soviet Union try to catch up with the backward RI in terms of 13 years?
    1. BAI
      BAI April 11 2018 09: 27
      +2
      The maximum influence of Russia in the world was in 1960 - 63. Under the USSR.
      1. yehat
        yehat April 11 2018 09: 46
        +1
        but not a fact. In the 30s, foreigners actively moved to the USSR, the growth rate was frightening.
        I think that was when the influence was the highest. And in the 60s, the world share of direct power was probably the maximum, but ideologically, the USSR was weaker.
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid April 11 2018 14: 20
          0
          Quote: yehat
          I think that was when the influence was the highest. And in the 60s, the world share of direct power was probably the maximum, but ideologically, the USSR was weaker.

          Weakness of ideology? Probably, it began to begin after, in the 70s? When did those who went through the Second World War began to leave leadership positions?
          1. yehat
            yehat April 11 2018 15: 22
            +1
            no weakness started earlier and it’s far from only the cult of personality and other maneuvers
            the very understanding of party ideas has become optional even for high-level managers.
            And they behaved accordingly, which caused a lot of questions.
            1. Mooh
              Mooh April 11 2018 23: 28
              +1
              Quote: yehat
              no weakness started earlier and it’s far from only the cult of personality and other maneuvers
              the very understanding of party ideas has become optional even for high-level managers.
              And they behaved accordingly, which caused a lot of questions.

              Weakness began with Khrushchev, namely with the XX Congress, when his position was incomprehensible to a huge part of the country's population and most allies. The fight against the personality cult of Stalin, he laid the foundation for discrediting the ideas of Lenin-Stalin in the eyes of society and at the same time could not offer ideas not only the best, but in general any. It was he who began to cut social elevators and created the dictatorship of the CPSU with an infallible and irremovable political bureau and laid all the prerequisites for the slow Brezhnev degradation.
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid April 12 2018 05: 43
                0
                [quote = MooH] And they behaved accordingly, which caused a lot of questions. [/ quote]
                Weakness began with Khrushchev, namely with the XX Congress, when his position was incomprehensible to a huge part of the country's population and most allies. The fight against the personality cult of Stalin, he laid the foundation for discrediting the ideas of Lenin and Stalin in the eyes of society and ....... [/ quote] To make all this possible at the XX Congress of the CPSU, the transition in this mind had to happen earlier. What the plenum showed during the life of Stalin, about which there was an article. At this Plenum, apart from Stalin, only 1 was in a paramilitary jacket, the rest were already dressed in suits, shirts, ties in a Western manner.
        2. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 45
          0
          Quote: yehat
          foreigners actively moved to the USSR

          only engineers! better to feed a hundred engineers than a hundred million Chinese
          1. yehat
            yehat April 11 2018 16: 09
            0
            not only engineers, just a little is heard about others.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 12: 17
      +4
      Quote: K.A.S.
      For example, I believe that Tsarist Russia has achieved no less success.

      There are facts - tsarist Russia has never been a superpower, despite the fact that domestic science / industry has been in various years from the first five countries to the top ten. I also like a lot of things in tsarist Russia, it was certainly not "unwashed", but under socialism we achieved more - this is obvious
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid April 12 2018 05: 55
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        There are facts - Tsarist Russia has never been a superpower, despite the fact that domestic science / industry has been in various years from the first five countries to the top ten
        Yes, tsarist Russia was the fifth among the developed countries, but at the same time there was a huge separation from previous countries in this five. Here there is juggling and silence. For example, the claim that the largest grain export and fed the whole of Europe. Moreover, there is a huge difference between the lives of peasants, workers and the ruling classes. Tolstoy called his works HUNGER, where he cited evidence that bread was always with quinoa, always malnutrition, if not hunger. The lack of doctors. He exposed RI of that time to the philosophers Menshikov, who was not at all revolutionary.
      2. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor April 12 2018 17: 06
        0
        In fairness, at the time of the kings the situation that happened during the Cold War (1-2 world leaders. And the rest in fact at their tail) was practically impossible - all states were balanced at about the same level, even Great Britain was " first among equals, "no more. But after the WWII, the world changed so much that the gap between leaders and those who were catching up began to increase at a frantic pace, and after WWII, the scale of this gap exceeded all possible representations of its predecessors ...
    3. victor50
      victor50 April 11 2018 14: 16
      +3
      But capitalism has led us to try to reach the 1913 indicators! Can you name what we have achieved under capitalism over the years, bending, humiliating, and that under socialism in the first 25 years.
  4. Nix1986
    Nix1986 April 11 2018 07: 16
    +4
    And you just have to look at our crowded eastern neighbor, what to adopt ?! Yes, at least the most primitive, the fight against corruption. And if you guys can’t even cope with this then "And you, friends, no matter how you sit down, you’re not fit in musicians," even consider the council of elders as a political system.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh April 11 2018 23: 33
      0
      The fight against corruption is not the main function of the state, moreover, in many political systems corruption is inevitable and necessary as it is one of the mechanisms of government.
  5. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx April 11 2018 07: 40
    +5
    Socialism raised our power as high as we never rose under princes and kings - but it turned out to be the shortest political system in the history of our state.

    The most short-lived system in our country, while capitalism is. In the 17th less than a year, and the last 30 years. I hope that it will remain the shortest.
    1. K.A.S.
      K.A.S. April 11 2018 07: 45
      +1
      Judging by the number of people who voted for the president, your hopes are in vain !!!!
      I don’t understand why capitalism is not like that. From each according to his ability to each according to his work !!!
      Many people want to have everything as under capitalism, but it doesn’t happen to work and live under the USSR
      1. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 43
        +4
        Quote: K.A.S.
        Many people want to have everything as under capitalism, but it doesn’t happen to work and live under the USSR

        After the unification in the GDR, they said: everything that they told us about communism turned out to be a lie, but everything that was said about the horrors of capitalism turned out to be true. Under capitalism, you can not only have, you can not have laughing
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid April 11 2018 08: 48
      +1
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      Socialism raised our power as high as we never rose under princes and kings - but it turned out to be the shortest political system in the history of our state.

      The most short-lived system in our country, while capitalism is. In the 17th less than a year, and the last 30 years. I hope that it will remain the shortest.

      Probably, capitalism was probably in the Republic of Ingushetia before the 17th year.
    3. BAI
      BAI April 11 2018 09: 32
      +2
      The most short-lived system in our country, while capitalism is. In the 17th less than a year, and the last 30 years.

      Russia embarked on the path of capitalist development in the 1860s, after the abolition of serfdom in 1861.
  6. Tired
    Tired April 11 2018 07: 44
    +7
    How is socialism thus separated from democracy? Socialism inherently requires democracy. And in the USSR, at first, democracy was such that all of Europe looked with envy. Later, the mobilization nature of the economy and the bureaucratic arbitrariness that developed against its background demanded that the freedom of Soviet democracy be pressed, but democratic principles themselves remained valuable, albeit in words. Although the opposition of bourgeois democracy and socialist democracy took place and was sometimes used as an excuse to clamp down on democratic institutions.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 12: 18
      +3
      Quote: Tired
      How is socialism thus separated from democracy?

      A one-party system in general has no relation to democracy, unless there are internal strong factions. In the CPSU (even already pre-war) - was not
      1. Tired
        Tired April 11 2018 13: 28
        +1
        The party system itself is not necessary for democracy.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 11 2018 13: 30
          +1
          Quote: Tired
          The party system itself is not necessary for democracy.

          Suggest your option
          1. Tired
            Tired April 11 2018 18: 27
            0
            Advice and there is this alternative - elections by productive groups. Another thing is that the CPSU (b) initially reserved the right to interfere in the activities of the Soviets if they began to flirt with the bourgeoisie. The initial task of the party is to support ideology, that is, the general course of development of the entire social and state system. The power of the party was not to replace the power of the Soviets.
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich April 11 2018 18: 58
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Suggest your option

            good
            "Do not agree - mind. Object - offer. Suggest - do" wink repeat
      2. victor50
        victor50 April 11 2018 14: 20
        +2
        In the GDR, if memory serves, there were already 5 parties. Not all socialist states were characterized by a one-party system. But dictatorship is possible with a multi-party system. For example, as we have now. The right to speak is not quite the right to be heard.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 11 2018 15: 03
          +2
          Quote: victor50
          But dictatorship is possible with a multi-party system.

          Possible - the Russian Federation is an example of this. But the fact is that we talked about the need for a multi-party system for democracy, not just a multi-party system, but one where the parties are approximately equal to each other in terms of capabilities and are too antagonistic to unite
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid April 12 2018 06: 04
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But the fact is that we talked about the need for a multi-party system for democracy, not just a multi-party system, but one where the parties are approximately equal to each other in terms of capabilities and are too antagonistic to unite
            It turns out that, for example, an apple is antagonistic, but %%%% is insignificant and this reduces its antagonism to zero. Then, after all, the unification of parties took place and the transfer of votes. So, in my opinion, something is not right with our democracy. By the way, in the whole world democracy too is not as democratic as it was under the USSR.
    2. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 40
      +3
      Quote: Tired
      And in the USSR, at first, democracy was such that all of Europe looked with envy.

      USSR in different years different country
  7. Lynx33
    Lynx33 April 11 2018 08: 07
    +1
    So where are the conclusions? An article in the spirit of serial detectives, the main intrigue goes on to the next series. But I think so, because the author went through and rejected all the options available on the planet for the political structure of the country, then there remains one option that has not yet been tested by anyone - complete communism wassat Well, as they say, YES HELLO OUR LIGHT FUTURE, FRIENDLY! drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 12: 19
      +1
      Quote: Lynx33
      So where are the conclusions?

      In the USSR 2,0
    2. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 39
      0
      Quote: Lynx33
      then there remains one option that has not yet been tested by anyone - complete communism wassat

      Communism is a survival community defined by necessity. The Earth is overpopulated, from the moment when oil really runs out, part of humanity will really face the dilemma of dying or fighting, and if there is no world government that would prepare for future problems, then the Earth will turn into one of many planets, life will end on it
  8. Alex_59
    Alex_59 April 11 2018 08: 25
    +4
    But we need to remember another thing - yes, socialism really brought us to the scientific, political, economic heights, but it also cast us from there into the dirt and game of the 90's.

    In the USSR, socialism was not built. There was still equality at the very least, but there was clearly not enough freedom and justice.
    I will not tire of repeating, I am deeply convinced that the USSR made a false start in the transition to the future. There was no base for the transition to socialism at the beginning and middle of the 20 century, a mistake crept in. Practical ways to such a transition have not been explored. As a result, a pure idea in practice was transformed under the influence of these factors into something far from socialism. But something worthwhile to socialism is incomparably closer than the structure of other countries. The USSR had a reserve, was ahead of the curve, albeit with errors, but as a result of the 1991 coup of the year, it handed over these achievements and chose to return a century ago (if not more). At the same time, in the countries to which we opposed the prerequisites for the transition to socialism, by our time they have already formed by themselves, in a natural way. If the USSR understood this, then there was a chance through reforms to correct the course and today remain the leader of the planet at the forefront of progress. Instead, we slipped into capitalism and into the pre-industrial era, and again we are faced with the challenge of going through the era of modernity and industrialization. Twenty five again!
    Gorbachev and his team committed a crime not against the USSR, but against humanity, though no one understands this.
    In the 21 century, the transition to socialism is inevitable, and in fact is already taking place in Sweden, France, Norway, Italy, partly Germany. The United States and China are still a long way off, but now we are the farthest. And were among the leaders.
    What to do today I do not know. There are no forces in the country that are ready to uphold ideas for the benefit of society, and not just manage financial flows. There are no passionaries. Well-fed belly and mine Martin Luther King is not visible, there is no desire to assert his rights. And if such ones appear, then all kinds of liberals immediately try to saddle their protest, crowds of Navalny run up with ducklings and such a civil-law protest immediately starts to smell foul, and people who stand up for their rights are the first who want to dump them away from such an action.
    1. yehat
      yehat April 11 2018 09: 48
      +2
      socialism is just a social system that sets the direct goals of caring for the social life of the population. And it was built, but with so many shortcomings in the organization of the economy that the idea itself was compromised.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid April 12 2018 06: 12
        +1
        This idea of ​​SOCIALISM cannot be compromised due to the shortcomings of the economy; there were temporary difficulties and an attempt to “expand and deepen” them, since this was the first such experience. The inheritance from capitalism was able to destroy the country at that time in the beginning of the 20th century. And what remains of the capitalist RF from the USSR? Or other former republics? Do not compare. Is it really a lack of economy?
        Capitalism built around the world has many more shortcomings, and nothing, lives for itself and does not consider itself to be compromised.
        1. yehat
          yehat April 12 2018 09: 43
          0
          that idea of ​​SOCIALISM cannot be compromised due to shortcomings in the economy

          how else can! Khrushchev promised - we will build socialism by such a year
          the year has come - they looked, not everyone liked it.
          And so the reputation of the idea was constantly leaked.
          I’m not saying to what extent careerists have reached the point of propagating the idea and not understanding
          what it is.
    2. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 34
      +1
      +++ plus you !! There are controversial issues of course on freedom ... But in general I join. Forgotten the idea to educate a socially oriented person.
  9. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn April 11 2018 08: 59
    +2
    Only ugly capitalism and ugly democracy grows on our soil. But they will return to socialism, our leaders lack the willpower. Maximum military dictatorship.
    1. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 31
      +1
      Quote: vladimirvn
      Only ugly capitalism and ugly democracy grows on our soil. But they will return to socialism, our leaders lack the willpower.

      they do not strive for this. The power system in our country is built in such a way as to prevent the West from accessing the Russian feeders. Raw material. Not only that, we climb into Syria because there is a feeder for the rich, with the help of the army, of course.
  10. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov April 11 2018 09: 08
    +3
    Zasiruuha blizzard zasiruuha .. (sings) wink Andrey is my advice to you, it’s better not to continue. Because how to compare the state and the enterprise is certainly powerful! We heard crap about new technocrats more than once, but the results are zero. If socialism has elevated us to the heights, then the liberal capitalism of the modern spill over 30 years has not only lifted us up a little, but even plunged us into abysses. Deeps of money-grubbing, stupidity, consumerism, etc.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 12: 39
      +4
      I read the comment, alas, what place it is associated with the article is impossible to understand.
      1. andrej-shironov
        andrej-shironov April 11 2018 16: 51
        0
        smile Indeed, kamment is not associated with the article. The article doesn’t even make sense. Excuse me, Andrey.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 11 2018 17: 46
          +3
          Quote: andrej-shironov
          Indeed, kamment is not associated with the article. The article doesn’t even make sense.

          (laughing) Well, no and no trial
  11. yehat
    yehat April 11 2018 09: 38
    0
    the author of the article writes
    To ensure the best governance of the country, “social elevators” are very important - the “road to power” (up to the supreme) to talented people from non-elite classes of society

    but this formula just gives rise to incompetent power!
    it is important to understand that managerial work is far from being the same with power.
    Along with the possibilities, the manager of a paravozik should receive baggage of obligations and responsibilities. It was already brilliantly implemented under Stalin in the USSR and now works in a number of countries - for example, in Japan.
    It should not go apart - only together always.
    Finally, the manager is well described by the theory of leadership, and there are much more requirements than described in the article.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid April 11 2018 11: 06
      +2
      You say, social elevators === incompetent power ???? And the lack of these elevators, which led to a competent authority? No, to permissiveness and not only lack of responsibility, but even to misunderstanding both the word and the meaning of responsibility. And us for what? And this is in our power, and not just in the life of our neighbors
      1. yehat
        yehat April 11 2018 11: 48
        +1
        I did not say a word about elevators. I am saying that the article describes management in a one-sided and primitive way, and it is precisely such a primitive idea that was put into practice under Khrushchev that led to the collapse of the personnel policy and, as a result, the country. Examples? Shevornadze, Gorbachev, Gaidar, etc.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 11 2018 12: 41
          +3
          Quote: yehat
          I’m saying that the article describes one-sidedly and primitively control and just such a primitive representation

          :))))) "One-sided and primitive" description is a CLASSICAL description of the process of managing something - from the Intergalactic Empire to the family budget :)))
          1. yehat
            yehat April 11 2018 13: 02
            +1
            I don’t know where you found such a classic - I studied as a manager, I read a lot of things on this topic and nowhere that is described in the article was not called a classic. This is some kind of strange, absurd primitivism.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 11 2018 13: 31
              +2
              Quote: yehat
              I don’t know where you found such a classic - I studied as a manager, I read a lot of things on this topic and nowhere that is described in the article was not called a classic.

              Yes, it’s not a question, since you studied, especially :))) Just tell me what the management process consists of. I am sure it will not be difficult for you :))) For the seed I will quote Meskon M. Kh.
              Management is a process of planning, organization, motivation and control, necessary in order to formulate and achieve the goals of the organization

              What do you quote me?
        2. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid April 11 2018 14: 06
          +2
          Sergey, I do not agree with you about the fact that
          Quote: yehat
          ..... it is such a primitive idea that was put into practice under Khrushchev that led to the collapse of the personnel policy and, as a result, the country. Examples? Shevornadze, Gorbachev, Gaidar, etc.
          , in my opinion, another country led to collapse, but I still need to think up the words .... How can a performance lead to collapse? Concrete actions lead to the collapse, which were, at first gradually, and then more and more.
          1. aybolyt678
            aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 18
            0
            Quote: Reptiloid
            How can a performance crash?

            if the idea is wrong, then it leads to collapse. An example is the model of a liberal modern economy imposed on us. Where the amount of money is not tied to the production of goods or energy, but to the reserves of Gold and Currency reserves in the Central Bank.
            1. yehat
              yehat April 11 2018 15: 24
              +1
              I will explain on the fingers - remember the saying about the victory of a herd of sheep led by a lion?
              here is the same thing.
            2. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid April 11 2018 16: 12
              +1
              Quote: aybolyt678
              Quote: Reptiloid
              How can a performance crash?

              if the idea is wrong, then it leads to collapse. An example is the model of a liberal modern economy imposed on us. Where the amount of money is not tied to the production of goods or energy, but to the reserves of Gold and Currency reserves in the Central Bank.

              Well, you and I didn’t imagine anything like that. Fulfillment of this wish, that’s what! But they carried it out not as a result of speculative representations, but as ordered by "from above" and pulled the theory up for their own benefit.
              1. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 April 11 2018 20: 40
                +1
                Quote: Reptiloid
                But they carried it out not as a result of speculative representations, but as ordered by "from above" and pulled the theory up for their own benefit.

                Incidentally, they began to tighten the theory of communism only after Stalin. There was such a subject of political economy of socialism, by analogy with the political economy of capitalism. The authors of the textbook included Joseph Vissarionovich. However, the textbook came out after the death of the leader. Stalin considered it raw, - without theory death is to us, Stalin often said. He was very unhappy that the process of creating a quality person, the builder of communism, was slowly going on, he did not see the leader of additional ways to interest people. But at least he himself worked for wear and tear and set an example; What they don’t do now. but in vain.
      2. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 23
        +1
        Quote: Reptiloid
        You say social elevators === incompetent power?

        an elevator is just a way to jump there, but effective work requires shooting cameras along the way up
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid April 11 2018 16: 07
          +2
          Quote: aybolyt678
          an elevator is just a way to jump there, but effective work requires shooting cameras along the way up
          Well, why so harsh? Just obstacles, stops, competition, that would be an incentive to improve personal results, through improved production (???) and responsibility for them! Something like this.??
          1. aybolyt678
            aybolyt678 April 11 2018 20: 31
            +1
            Quote: Reptiloid
            Well, why so harsh? Just obstacles, stops, competition, that would be an incentive to improve personal results,

            in order to reach a clear conclusion in our conversation, it is first necessary to develop a common terminology. For example, a stick with an iron tip for fitting mules and obstinate slaves was called a stimulus in ancient Rome. Therefore, the incentive is primarily the fear of punishment. If the penalty for non-fulfillment of a combat mission may be execution, then similarly it may be in state administration. After all, government officials of a certain (oil) level have opportunities commensurate with the capabilities of the leader of a small and not very country, and therefore the mistakes of their decisions, human weaknesses have an appropriate scale. The hungry tears of thousands of children are worth the life of one undeservedly fat man.
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid April 12 2018 06: 23
              +1
              I would correct you in the last sentence. The hungry tears of thousands of children are worth the lives of thousands of undeservedly fat officials! Then it will work! And so ---- will translate the arrows.
              1. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 April 12 2018 07: 29
                +1
                Quote: Reptiloid
                I would correct you in the last sentence. The hungry tears of thousands of children are worth the lives of thousands of undeservedly fat officials!

                Yeah !!! then all the same shooting cameras are needed !! ???
                1. Reptiloid
                  Reptiloid April 12 2018 08: 26
                  +1
                  Eeee my friend !!!! The problem came out! While the elevator rises ----- no executions! (In low positions) But how they arrived, but they began to receive their salaries ----- on salaries and punishment! Good story by Robert Sheckley. TICKET TO PLANET TRANAY.
                  1. aybolyt678
                    aybolyt678 April 12 2018 12: 00
                    +1
                    yes yes i'm about the same, thanks!
  12. apro
    apro April 11 2018 09: 41
    +1
    Writing itch .. one does not follow from another.
    The basis of life is a means of livelihood. And the main question is who they belong to. And you can dance from it. Private property in all perversions and nation-wide. Which is more effective? There is a difficult question, but there are Honduras and Bangladesh, although democracy is capitalistic. Democracy is not a solution problems if not resolved economic. to increase the productivity of the production of livelihoods.
    Solving economic problems by consolidating society is a direct path to socialism. And some capstries go for it and achieve results. At the same time, they limit the private appetites of the capitalists. But not everyone is capable of this. The community of wage workers and proletarians themselves must learn to persistently defend their economic interests. in Europe it turned out. And the society is more educated and richer.
    Not everything is so simple with Russia. All sectors of society are degrading. There are no associations on economic interests.
  13. icant007
    icant007 April 11 2018 11: 41
    +1
    "From each according to his ability to each according to his work !!!" - if this principle worked, but alas ...
  14. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor April 11 2018 11: 56
    +1
    A constitutional monarchy? The same problems as with the absolute - it is absolutely incomprehensible that it will give us the best social elevators in this system. In addition, a constitutional monarchy is of two kinds - it is a parliamentary monarchy, when a country, in fact, is ruled not by the king, but by the prime minister. But in this case it is not too clear, why do we need a monarch?

    Um, colleague, you have some rather strange idea of ​​a constitutional monarchy. After all, it is essentially the same democracy, only the post of head of state is inherited. Social elevators appear there over time, as the requirements for this appear - and in democracies they did not appear immediately, in some USA in the beginning of the 19th century it was extremely rare to get rid of rags to riches, and large landowners and industrialists decided there. Similarly, in the UK - social. elevators a matter of time and action watered. parties in Parliament, as in any other democracy.
    Why the monarch in this case? Why is the president in Germany? Why is the prime minister in Russia? laughing To manage the state (even if purely nominal), we need preparation, a certain upbringing, and awareness of responsibility. Under the monarchy, the head of state - the monarch proper - has it all. He freely acts as the permanent representative of the state, while parties change. And democracy with parliament, in turn, on the other hand provides the very same social elevators, reliable work and good quality managers (in theory) as prime minister. In simple terms, the monarch is the owner of the company, but all the main decisions belong to the manager (prime minister). In my opinion, the scheme is close to optimal, and it doesn’t matter, the monarchy is hereditary, elective, or we have a life-long president in general at a party leapfrog in that very parliament. The monarch and parliament balance each other in a certain sense, however, for this it is necessary to leave some levers of power for the monarch (for example, the right to dissolve parliament and re-election), so that in case of not the best monarch, the parliament would take over the reins of government fully, and a good monarch participated in the government, increasing efficiency.

    I myself consider the constitutional monarchy with the Social Democrats to be the most convenient form of government. The democratic and authoritarian element, in theory, balance each other, and when the society adapts enough - it will be possible to carry out the transition to full democracy. But the problem is that in order for this to work, prerequisites are needed. They were in Western countries, some of them went this way centuries ago. They are not in Eastern Europe - and the peoples, and nat. the elite, even with formal democracy, is steadfastly striving for authoritarianism and variations on the theme of "one people, one party, one leader." Belarus - already, Russia - United Russia and Putin are simply uncontested, Ukraine - after the well-known events, everything goes to the dictatorship of the oligarchy in general and the rule of one particular oligarch in particular ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 14: 30
      +2
      Quote: arturpraetor
      Um, colleague, you have some rather strange idea of ​​a constitutional monarchy. After all, it is essentially the same democracy, only the post of head of state is inherited.

      Dear Arthur Praetor, I'm afraid I do not understand you. As I already wrote, there are two types of constitutional monarchy. In the parliamentary monarchy of the main state is not the king, but the prime minister, since it is he who concentrates 95% of the entire executive branch. In the same case, if the king retains executive power, then this is a dualistic monarchy, and you are talking about a dualistic one. My question is "Why then the monarch?" refers to parliamentary form
      Quote: arturpraetor
      To manage the state (even if purely nominal), we need preparation, a certain upbringing, and awareness of responsibility.

      A colleague, the main thing that a manager should have is the ability to understand people and motivation for results, and none of this is inherited.
      Quote: arturpraetor
      Under the monarchy, the head of state - the monarch proper - has it all.

      Where from? I gave the list of Russian emperors, do you disagree?
      Quote: arturpraetor
      In simple terms, the monarch is the owner of the company, but all the main decisions belong to the manager (prime minister). In my opinion, the scheme is close to optimal, and it doesn’t matter, the monarchy is hereditary, elective, or we have a life-long president in general at a party leapfrog in that very parliament.

      Colleague, this scheme does not work for two reasons - the owner of the company, this is the "main passionary", but if he ignores this and takes the position of rentier, then the business, as a rule, quickly falls into decay. In addition, the king in the parliamentary monarchy does not have power over the prime minister, and in the dualistic prime minister there is no. That is, a company is a cross between a parliamentary and dualistic monarchy, where there is a current prime minister, but at the same time the king (owner) is clothed with all power
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor April 11 2018 15: 25
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Dear Arthur Praetor, I'm afraid I do not understand you.

        You said that under the constitutional monarchy bad soc. elevators ("it is not clear what will give us the best social elevators in this system"). I do not agree with this - it depends on the state and time. In the United States and under the soc. elevators at one time were not particularly observed, and in modern Britain elevators are not so much worse than in "pure" democracies. So the presence of developed social. elevators do not depend on whether the president or the monarch is at the head of state.
        A colleague, the main thing that a manager should have is the ability to understand people and motivation for results, and none of this is inherited.

        Colleague, you somehow too simply perceive government. These are not only managerial skills - although they are for the general population, of course, at the forefront - but also manners and education. Under a monarchical system, the head of state plays the role of a representative of the entire state, and has the necessary education for this. It is absolutely not necessary for him to be a manager, if this is not an absolute monarchy - for this there is a parliament and a prime minister. In the end, we have two leaders in many countries - the president and the prime minister, but for some reason you have no complaints about the use of the second de facto state leader only in relation to the monarchy. The head of state and the head of government are two different functions, the emphasis is different in each state - in Germany, the prime minister has more power than the president, and in the USA and Russia, on the contrary, the president is at the forefront. But this does not lead to the fact that in Germany it is urgently necessary to cancel the unnecessary presidency, and in the USA and Russia - the vice president / prime minister. These two posts have slightly different functions, and they are not limited only to the direct control of the state, which in general is a complex concept in itself.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Where from? I gave the list of Russian emperors, do you disagree?

        I do not agree, because you are mixing concepts. I understand that for a citizen of Russia this is quite natural, but this does not mean that this is the only right option. I spend a lot of time on foreign sites and even communicate with foreigners - their understanding of the functions of government is somewhat more complicated, and there is a more or less clear division into functions of the head of state (representative) and head of government (manager). Of the list of Russian emperors, only Nicholas II was the constitutional monarch, and that example is not the most successful, because democracy did not work very well, and the emperor was not the best. All other emperors were absolutists. We are talking about a constitutional monarchy - when the post of head of state as his representative and controller is inherited, and they try to develop the necessary skills from childhood, while the role of the chief manager is played by the prime minister - a person elected by means of democratic elections, i.e. natural selection with the definition of the best manager. The first represents the state, the second - its administration. These are slightly different functions, which, alas and ah, in the best traditions of authoritarianism in Eastern Europe, it is customary to combine - the notorious "one people, one party, one leader".
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Colleague, this scheme does not work for two reasons - the owner of the company, this is the "main passionary", but if he ignores this and takes the position of rentier, then the business, as a rule, quickly falls into decay.

        Colleague, you continue to stubbornly see the monarchy as a form of authoritarianism, where only one person rules, although the constitutional monarchy is just a form of democracy, from authoritarianism there is the very minimum. And I repeat - there are functions of the head of state, there are functions of the head of government, which are three big differences.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In addition, the king in the parliamentary monarchy does not have power over the prime minister, and in the dualistic prime minister there is no.

        I’m sorry, colleague, but here you are very mistaken. The Second Reich was a dualistic monarchy - and there were simultaneously the Kaiser and the Reich Chancellor. After the 1905 year, Russia was a dualistic monarchy - in it, in parallel with the emperor, there was also the post of prime minister (chairman of the Council of Ministers, to be precise) as head of government. At the same time, the Reich Chancellor. Prime Minister performed managerial functions to the same or even greater extent than the Kaiser / Emperor, although they were not elected democratically.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        That is, a company is a cross between a parliamentary and dualistic monarchy, where there is a current prime minister, but at the same time the king (owner) is clothed with all power

        That's just the degree of possession of the fullness of power in different countries can differ markedly even with a formal belonging to the same type of monarchy. I’m talking about the balance of opportunities and influence between the head of state and the head of government. The power should belong to the head of government, but there should also be a separate head of state, performing representative functions and, in case of emergency, acting as a safety net for the parliament in the event of crises that cannot be dealt with with the simplest democratic mechanisms.

        I repeat, you very sharply mix the functions of the head of state and head of government, for you it all comes down to only one leader, combining all the functions of government, although this applies only to some states of the world. In most states, there is a separation of the entirety of the supreme power in the state between two people - a representative and a manager. I only advocate that the representative undergo the necessary training and education from childhood, also possessing some levers of influence on the manager and parliament in case you want to help (if you want and have the skills) or if it will be necessary to cut off the impending crisis in the parliament. But this is only an opportunity, the main function of the representative is to represent, and the manager is to manage. Mixing 2 into 1 is an additional burden and the likelihood that one and the same person, exposed by the authorities as a result of democratic elections, will do equally badly, simply not having time to back two bazaars, or simply bend over time, not coping with the increased volume of work.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 11 2018 19: 42
          +2
          Nothing :))))) Dear colleague, I will answer, but later :)))
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 12 2018 11: 04
          +2
          Quote: arturpraetor
          I do not agree with this - it depends on the state and time

          We are analyzing Western democracies of the second half of the 20 century.
          Quote: arturpraetor
          and in today's Britain, elevators are not so much worse than in "pure" democracies.

          So, after all, England is a completely democratic country, why would elevators work worse than in other democracies? :)))) They have two strong and approximately equal parties and there is an election process. And the fact that a “blotch” is attached to all this in the form of a sovereign who “reigns, but does not rule”, does not change anything in the democratic essence of England.
          Quote: arturpraetor
          So the presence of developed social. elevators do not depend on whether the president or the monarch is at the head of state.

          A colleague, the monarch of England is not at the head of the state. He has no levers of executive power, and the formally numerous functionality that is retained by him cannot be applied other than on the proposal of the prime minister or cabinet or parliament. That is, the king is not free in his royal privileges. In simple terms, the king can declare war, it is his right, but he cannot make such a decision on his own, but can, in fact, only approve such a decision.
          Quote: arturpraetor
          These are not only managerial skills - although they are for the general population, of course, at the forefront - but also manners and education.

          The colleague, manners and education of the king do not determine the quality of governing the country, and for me they remain outside the scope of the issue raised.
          Quote: arturpraetor
          These two posts have slightly different functions, and they are not limited only to the direct control of the state, which in general is a complex concept in itself.

          A colleague, the concept is complex, but the essence is the same - that the president in Germany, that the king in England have absolutely no levers of executive power. Accordingly, the president in Germany and the king in England are not at all responsible for managing the state. They have some role (for the most part - decorative), but they do not rule the country and do not have leverage over those who exercise this control.
          Quote: arturpraetor
          We are talking about a constitutional monarchy - when the post of head of state as his representative and controller is inherited

          Colleague, once again - in modern democracies the monarch is neither the head of state nor the controller of the head of state. As a matter of fact, only therefore these systems exist in the form as we know them :)))
          Quote: arturpraetor
          I’m sorry, colleague, but here you are very mistaken.

          OK, I ask you to indicate to me the mechanism by which the King of England OF his own free will can remove the Prime Minister, and the President of Germany - the Chancellor :)))
          Quote: arturpraetor
          I repeat, you very sharply mix the functions of the head of state and head of government, for you it all comes down to only one leader, combining all the functions of government, although this applies only to some states of the world.

          The problem is that among them are absolutely all Western democracies.
          Colleague, I do not mix anything. It’s just that in all cases of dualism of power (England, Germany, etc.) where there are 2 leaders, one of them has full power, and the second has nothing to do with government. Representative functions are excellent, but this is NOT government management.
          Quote: arturpraetor
          I only advocate that the representative undergo the necessary training and education from childhood, also having some levers of influence on the manager and parliament in case you want to help (if you have the desire and skills) or if it is necessary to reduce the impending crisis in the parliament.

          Colleague, our task is to ensure the quality of governance of the country, that is, ways to improve the effectiveness of the one who rules. The king, even in your interpretation, is not such, as he acts as a kind of "bench" and no more. In addition, the thesis “if you want to help” is unrealistic. Imagine that by inheritance the crown came from Iota with the initiative, and here he climbs to “help” .... Actually, this is one of the reasons why the king was ordered to enter the executive branch of England :)))
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor April 12 2018 11: 53
            0
            Oh, colleague, you are still corrupted by your Fatherland in this regard))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A colleague, the monarch of England is not at the head of the state.

            A colleague, the king of Great Britain is officially the head of state. The fact that you somehow define this term differently does not cancel this fact. For reference, the head of state is not necessarily the head of the executive branch. In our country they coincide historically, there were simply no cases to the contrary, that's why you equate the head of the executive branch with the head of state, but in the West everything is more complicated and interesting. Not everything must happen according to a single template.
            He has no levers of executive power, and the formally numerous functionality that is retained by him cannot be applied other than on the proposal of the prime minister or cabinet or parliament.

            In fact, yes, the kings of Great Britain are not directly involved in government. But, quoting the same British, "the sovereign under the constitutional monarchy has three rights: to consult, promote and warn". These are indirect levers of influence on power. The king’s initiatives are still present, but they already require the approval of a democratically elected Parliament, and from this the king is not considered completely powerless.
            The colleague, manners and education of the king do not determine the quality of governing the country, and for me they remain outside the scope of the issue raised.

            Well, in vain. Government management is not only a solution to economic issues, although this is traditionally a sore subject for us. But what about the fact that education does not play a role - do you seriously think that a person who knows a little more than nothing about the economy can immediately begin to strengthen it, and not bring it down? Yes, the monarch does not have direct executive rights, but this is precisely one of the features of Western democracies - no one has such leverage, at least the US president, at least anyone. It was in Russia that the president said - the Duma adopted, and the same Trump sometimes meets with serious opposition from the Congress, and the bills proposed by him may simply not pass without receiving support even from their own party. This is the democratic administration.
            OK, I ask you to indicate to me the mechanism by which the King of England OF his own free will can remove the Prime Minister, and the President of Germany - the Chancellor :)))

            And where does it? You argued that under the dualistic monarchy there is no prime minister. I gave examples of the fact that this is an erroneous statement. If the generally accepted definition of the Prime Minister is different from how you define the meaning of this word, you are sorry, but I'm a conservative))
            It’s just that in all cases of dualism of power (England, Germany, etc.) where there are 2 leaders, one of them has full power, and the second has nothing to do with government. Representative functions are excellent, but this is NOT government management.

            I did not think I would agree with those colleagues who make comments on your comparisons of government as a firm, but it seems to be necessary. This leads to over simplification. Representative functions are not part of state governance only if our state does not need to be represented at the international level as a state, and within its borders as a state. administration. Otherwise, it is also part of what we call government by the state.
            Imagine that, by inheritance, the crown was with iota with the initiative, and now he climbs to "help" ....

            ... both his and Iota’s initiatives are being cut off by a democratically elected parliament, which sees both iotism and, to put it mildly, does not agree with him. Similarly, the president can put forward iota proposals if this is not a presidential dictatorship, and his proposals will also be cut down by the parliament. This is the essence of democracy, yes - collective decision-making and screening of those decisions that are negatively perceived by the majority. Everything looks the same for you according to the simplest scheme - the tsar is elected in the elections, and he alone decides everything. Sorry colleague, this is anything but Western democracy.

            In general, it looks unconvincing, dear colleague. You insistently mix the functions of the head of state, head of government and head of the executive branch, you do not see any role of the representative function in state administration, you insistently reduce the role of monarchs in state administration to zero, although they still have some functions (this is by the way very characteristic a trait for those born in Eastern Europe, in the West, the role of monarchs is equated with the helm only by socialists, and even then not in all states). For you, government is only internal administration, and only the sole power of man. IMHO, but this is an erroneous approach, and looks like an attempt to judge by itself (your state) all the others, although this is one of the most ungrateful cases in the world. I propose to complete the exchange of views on this - I won’t convince you, you won’t convince me either, because my knowledge about the work structure of other states, and not just Russia, suggests the existence of other management mechanisms that are different from those voiced by you.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 12 2018 12: 56
              +1
              Quote: arturpraetor
              For you, government is only internal administration, and only the sole power of man

              Colleague, I understand what you are talking about, but it seems that you absolutely do not perceive what I am talking about. Well, or I, the sinful one, cannot convey my thoughts to you.
              I will make one more attempt and I will be brief.
              What is England? This is, first of all, a democratic country in which parliamentary elections are carried out quite democratically - by the people, and the Prime Minister should enjoy the support of the majority in the House of Commons (and the ministers have a similar picture). Accordingly, the effectiveness of government is determined primarily by the work of the democratic system.
              Why is the democratic system of England working efficiently? We have two possible answers - because the country has a balanced system of political parties, or because the country has a monarch. Which of these answers is correct?
              Obviously the first. For one simple reason - there are enough examples in the world when a democratic system, in the presence of balanced parties, works well and there is no monarch. But there is not a single example in which there are no balanced parties, there is a monarch, and the system works well. By a simple method of exclusion, we come to the conclusion that for the functioning of a democratic system it is really important to balance the internal forces (the presence of parties of equal strength), and not to stand on the side of the monarchy.
              I do not argue that the monarchy can, under certain conditions, improve the quality of governing the country. But this is only possible if democracy, and so on, operates on a Western model. If it does not exist, then the constitutional monarchy gives absolutely nothing. That is why it is pointless to consider a constitutional monarchy as an alternative to democratic development - it can complement it, but cannot replace it.
              Actually, the whole debate boils down to the fact that you see democracy as an integral part of the modern constitutional monarchy. Well, so be it, but there is no contradiction in our positions - I discard the constitutional monarchy as an ALTERNATIVE to democracy. At the same time, I regard the constitutional monarchy of the same England simply as a form of Western democracy.
              And ... sorry, I can not resist
              Quote: arturpraetor
              And where does it? You argued that under the dualistic monarchy there is no prime minister.

              As a colleague, I argued something completely different - that in a dualistic monarchy, executive power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch. This is not the same thing.
              1. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor April 12 2018 13: 16
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Actually, the whole debate boils down to the fact that you see democracy as an integral part of the modern constitutional monarchy. Well, so be it, but there is no contradiction in our positions - I discard the constitutional monarchy as an ALTERNATIVE to democracy. At the same time, I regard the constitutional monarchy of the same England simply as a form of Western democracy.

                Actually, it is so - I consider the constitutional monarchy as one of the forms of Western democracy. Without a democratic element, almost any monarchy from about the middle of the 19th century, if not earlier, is flawed, and indeed not quite constitutional. So we have yes, more lexico-linguistic and terminological ( laughing ) the discussion turned out to be more than ideological - that’s how we talked about the same thing, it just seems that because of the emphasis we did not understand each other.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                As a colleague, I argued something completely different - that in a dualistic monarchy, executive power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch. This is not the same thing.

                Hmm ... you said the following: "Moreover, the king in the parliamentary monarchy does not have power over the prime minister, and in the dualistic prime minister there is no. ". I took it literally, although you seem to use the term" prime minister "in your understanding, which is slightly different from the generally accepted one (the prime minister is the head of government, regardless of whether he has full executive power or not , and that’s what you are resting on).
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 12 2018 15: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  Actually, it is - I consider the constitutional monarchy as one of the forms of Western democracy

                  Ufff :)))) Understood, finally :))) I'm glad :)
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  that’s how we talked about the same thing, it just seems that due to the accents we didn’t understand each other.

                  drinks
                  Quote: arturpraetor
                  You said the following: "In addition, the king in the parliamentary monarchy does not have power over the prime minister, and there is no prime minister in the dualistic."

                  Ugh, to my tongue .... I wanted to say that under the dualistic monarchy there is no prime minister who has full executive power.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 11 2018 19: 13
      +1
      Quote: arturpraetor
      Um, colleague, you have some rather strange idea of ​​a constitutional monarchy. After all, it is essentially the same democracy, only the post of head of state is inherited.

      "- No, John Gordon. There are many star kingdoms, sometimes at war with each other. Empire is only the greatest of them.
      Gordon could not hide his disappointment:
      “I was hoping that the world of the future would be democratic and wars would disappear.”
      “Star kingdoms are essentially democracy, people rule them,” Vel Quen explained. “We just give sonorous titles to our rulers.”
      Gordon nodded.
      “I think I understand.” It is like the English democracy of our time. There is also a queen. "
      "Star Kings" E. Hamilton 1947
      smile
  15. 16112014nk
    16112014nk April 11 2018 14: 32
    +2
    ... "our" social elevators "do not work as well as we would like."
    Our "social elevators" work, unlike the USSR, in the following way - everything is blocked for the people "up" to all floors. But "down" - for the people - "always welcome", also push! And the connection with the “elevator” does not work.
  16. aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 April 11 2018 15: 13
    0
    therefore, in the modern parliamentary monarchies (England!), the Tsar’s role is reduced to a purely nominal and representative one - he “reigns, but does not rule”

    utter stupidity. The Queen of England has the right to declare war, repeal the law ..... Power is enormous.
    The article has no concept of the evolution of power. I explain: A leader in a pack of wolves is personally responsible for sharing such prey, a leader in a tribe of people already shares responsibility with a shaman, in ancient Athens, responsibility for the actions of politicians is partially transferred to the people who choose them, the president has the opportunity to shift responsibility to the government. The farther the more inconspicuous and less responsible it is to have more power. Power she as a chameleon is evolving in the direction of invisibility. So it’s tastier.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 15: 43
      +3
      Quote: aybolyt678
      The Queen of England has the right to declare war, repeal the law ..... Power is enormous.

      What did you write there? BUT!
      Quote: aybolyt678
      utter stupidity.

      If you had given yourself the trouble to get a little acquainted with the issue, then you would have known that the powers of the monarchy of England are only formally extensive. That is, there are so-called Royal Prerogatives, but in reality they can be applied only on the advice of ministers
      1. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 April 11 2018 20: 50
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but in reality they can be applied only on the advice of ministers

        and the council of ministers of which country in England, or Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and another 50 land names?
        The Queen of England, she is the commander of the army, she has the right to dissolve the parliament .... you would have less visited Wikipedia and the books would have been read by respected Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
      2. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 April 11 2018 21: 02
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        That is, there are so-called Royal Prerogatives, but in reality they can be applied only on the advice of ministers

        - declare war and conclude peace, without indicating reasons, the queen is the supreme commander,
        - veto any law of parliament,
        - once a year the queen speaks to the parliament, setting goals for the coming year, that is, in fact forms the state’s policy,
        - a different "trifle" such as rewarding with medals, knighting, pardon, etc.,
        - the queen is the head of the Church of England, it’s like Putin and Patriarch Kirill would have coincided in one person.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 April 11 2018 21: 26
          0
          Here are just one small - "but." If the queen tomorrow imagines herself to be an absolute monarch, and not a formal representative and defender of the interests of the British bourgeoisie, then the story of the British monarchy will end there.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 12 2018 09: 13
            +1
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            If the queen tomorrow imagines herself to be an absolute monarch, and not a formal representative and defender of the interests of the British bourgeoisie, then the story of the British monarchy will end there.

            Well, this person does not understand :)))
          2. aybolyt678
            aybolyt678 April 12 2018 09: 55
            +1
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            Here are just one small - "but." If the queen imagines herself to be an absolute monarch tomorrow

            not imagine The power of any absolute monarch should be based on a certain foundation, this foundation has been developed and improved over the centuries. The only problem with today's English monarchy is that the world is not dimensionless, resources are finite, former natives are now highly skilled collectors. Therefore, the pillars of secular prosperity have staggered. They need a war.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 12 2018 15: 05
              +2
              Quote: aybolyt678
              The power of any absolute monarch

              (heavy sigh) - in England there is no absolute monarchy, so a constitutional parliamentary monarchy :))
              Quote: aybolyt678
              declare war and make peace without giving reasons

              Schazzzz! Only on the proposal of the Prime Minister :)
              1. yehat
                yehat April 13 2018 00: 36
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                in England there is no absolute monarchy

                you, like many, are led to an external form
                in reality, royal power in England is much closer to absolute,
                but they try not to advertise it.
                The most important thing is the parliament, which is designed to control the power of the monarchy in fact serves it.
                The same thing in the USA - outwardly, democracy in reality translates into a totalitarian state or tyranny - to the taste of those in power. Take at least the "good" Uncle Roosevelt.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 13 2018 09: 10
                  +3
                  Quote: yehat
                  in reality, royal power in England is much closer to absolute,
                  but they try not to advertise it.

                  In fact, England is ruled by intelligent reptilians from Proteus. But they try not to advertise this.
                  1. yehat
                    yehat April 14 2018 09: 49
                    0
                    inappropriate sarcasm. There are a bunch of materials that clearly show what I said. There is a video of Starikov about this. Everything is not going smoothly with logic, but for dummies it is intelligible.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 14 2018 10: 18
                      +1
                      Quote: yehat
                      Everything is not going smoothly with logic, but for dummies it is intelligible.

                      laughing good
  17. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 15: 50
    +3
    Socialism raised our power as high as we never rose under princes and kings - but it turned out to be the shortest political system in the history of our state.
    ---------------------------
    With all due respect, the author of the article mixed up a bunch of "horses, people." The social system and the form of government are somewhat different things. And don’t need to mix classes and classes by the way — these are also different things. And the collapse of the USSR was caused by the degeneration of the ruling elite, and not by the fact that socialism as a social system was bad. Just a bunch of social parasites, hiding under the party membership, carried out the restoration of capitalism in Russia, that is, the counter-revolution, pushing our country back to the era of almost the Crimean War.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 16: 17
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      With all due respect, the author of the article mixed up a bunch of "horses, people." The social system and the form of government are somewhat different things.

      Actually, we are talking about alternatives to democracy. Both democracy and socialism are forms of social order.
      Quote: Altona
      And don’t need to mix classes and classes by the way. These are also different things.

      They are not mixed, but separated, but in fact, if you look a little deeper, there is no clear definition of classes and classes, so they are completely compatible. And the essence of what is written in the article comes down to the fact that one of the options for modernizing the democratic structure is to move from political parties to class or estate representation and I don’t see anything in your comment that would contradict this
      Quote: Altona
      And the collapse of the USSR was caused by the degeneration of the ruling elite, and not by the fact that socialism as a social system was bad.

      The degeneration of the ruling elite up to the inability to rule the state is the first sign of a poor social system.
      Quote: Altona
      Just a bunch of social parasites, hiding behind party membership, carried out the restoration of capitalism in Russia

      The problems of the USSR were much deeper - the economic crisis, for example
  18. vladmort
    vladmort April 11 2018 16: 31
    +2
    The author, as I understand it, attends high school.

    The level of naivety and faith in the "pink ponies" is off scale.

    Social elevators, party competition, etc. these are just cliches for fools.

    In fact, democracy provides only two things:
    1) The absolute impunity and irresponsibility of the selected clowns, and
    2) As a consequence, the highest level of incompetence.

    It is a great happiness that in Russia democracy is largely decorative, this provides extremely competent and effective leadership.

    And by the way, our ancestors, 400 years ago, choosing a form of government did not convene a parliament, but crowned the Tsar. Of course, the author is direct evidence that over the past 400 years, people have become significantly stupid.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 17: 44
      +6
      Quote: vladmort
      The author, as I understand it, attends high school.

      Do not measure all by yourself
      Quote: vladmort
      It is a great happiness that in Russia democracy is largely decorative, this provides extremely competent and effective leadership.

      Go crazy :))) Well, if you live in Russia, in which the leadership is extremely competent and efficient - I dare not interfere.
      ZY, Interestingly, the orderlies now allow access to the Internet year-round, or only during the period of spring exacerbations?
      1. vladmort
        vladmort April 12 2018 00: 57
        0
        Go crazy :))) Well, if you live in Russia, in which the leadership is extremely competent and efficient - I dare not interfere.


        Boy. The leadership of Russia, in the most difficult conditions, maintained statehood, ensured defense capabilities and defended sovereignty. Call me a "democratic" country that has achieved such results?

        ZY, Interestingly, the orderlies now allow access to the Internet year-round, or only during the period of spring exacerbations?


        With the orderlies everything is in the ointment, they connect the Internet, they run around for beer, but corruption ... laughing
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 12 2018 09: 21
          +3
          Quote: vladmort
          Boy.

          Yes, not a girl.
          Quote: vladmort
          The leadership of Russia, in the most difficult conditions, maintained statehood, ensured defense capabilities and defended sovereignty. Call me a "democratic" country that has achieved such results?

          (stocking up with popcorn) Tell us in all chilling details about the "difficult" conditions in which Russia was at the beginning of the 2000's. And about who threatened our statehood and sovereignty there and how we heroically opposed this.
          Quote: vladmort
          Call me a "democratic" country that has achieved such results?

          Any NATO country, with the exception of defense capability, because they do not attach it, but this can be understood - superiority in conventional weapons is already enormous. Well, not one of them has lost either statehood or sovereignty
          1. vladmort
            vladmort April 12 2018 13: 30
            0

            Any NATO country, with the exception of defense capability, because they do not attach it, but this can be understood - superiority in conventional weapons is already enormous.


            Well, my dear. Unsurprisingly, a big fan of shit democracy cannot but be NATO.


            Well, not one of them has lost either statehood or sovereignty


            There is nothing to lose. Apart from the states, not one of them has any sovereignty.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 12 2018 15: 19
              +3
              Quote: vladmort
              Well, my dear. Unsurprisingly, a big fan of shit democracy cannot but be NATO.

              What can I say? Spring aggravation is a terrible thing. You managed to call the person proposing to leave the model of Western democracy to improved socialism a "fan of democracy"
              But to my question about what was so terrible in the beginning of the 2000’s and from what encroachments on our sovereignty our highly qualified leadership saved us and you couldn’t answer that way. What am I, however, not surprised at all
              Quote: vladmort
              There is nothing to lose. Apart from the states, not one of them has any sovereignty.

              laughing Girl, such nonsense looks silly even in the mouth of a child of secondary school age
              1. vladmort
                vladmort April 13 2018 01: 41
                0
                What can I say? Spring aggravation is a terrible thing. You managed to call the person proposing to leave the model of Western democracy to improved socialism a "fan of democracy"


                No wonder. In all the leading "democracies" green today are gaining strength; smart people are not without reason calling them watermelons; green outside, red inside. So the renewers of socialism are quite in trend.

                But to my question about what was so terrible in the beginning of the 2000’s and from what encroachments on our sovereignty our highly qualified leadership saved us and you couldn’t answer that way. What am I, however, not surprised at all


                Well, obviously shkolota, if you do not remember the 90s, the beginning of the 2000s. From the loss of sovereignty and loss of state value saved. And not with the help of shit democracy, but contrary.

                laughing Girl, such nonsense looks silly even in the mouth of a child of secondary school age


                Girls believe in princes, pink ponies, democracy and renewed socialism. So look in the mirror ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 13 2018 09: 13
                  +3
                  Quote: vladmort
                  Well obviously shkolota, if you do not remember 90е, the beginning of 2000х. From the loss of sovereignty and loss of state value saved.

                  I ASK AGAIN. What threatened our sovereignty and what threatened the loss of statehood? :)))) Will the answer be, or not? Or will you be repeating the same thing as a parrot?
                  "He saved the team a hundred times from danger,
                  But stubbornly silent from what "
  19. uskrabut
    uskrabut April 11 2018 17: 14
    +1
    The article poses a question and proposes answer options. But none of the proposed options will work, as long as the country has a high level of corruption of officials, they will always agree with each other and solve any problem in their own interests, but not in the interests of the whole society. And the second point is the impoverished disenfranchised population. If a person is poor, then he is powerless. He cannot hire a qualified lawyer, he cannot spit on everything and go to another region where conditions are better, or maybe to another country. The majority of the population completely lacks accumulation, which means the possibility of moving (why not a serf system?). Wealthy people have much more opportunities to show and defend their rights. That is why corrupt bureaucrats will by all means prevent the improvement of the welfare of the population, and this will also be facilitated by the raw material bias in the economy. We will solve these two problems - we will solve the problem of power.
  20. free
    free April 11 2018 18: 34
    +2
    Continue the author, I wonder what will happen in the end.
    1. populist
      populist April 11 2018 23: 42
      0
      I support. Really interesting. I read the first article, I was waiting for the second. I positively evaluate both articles. In some ways, I agree with the author, in which I must argue. Judging by the Brownian movement in the comments, few people have mastered the topic of democracy. It's just awful. I will wait for the continuation.
      PS What is this picture at the end of the article with an icon in the lower right corner. Does the author know the “history” of VKSV?
  21. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 18: 46
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Actually, we are talking about alternatives to democracy. Both democracy and socialism are forms of social order.

    Democracy is not a form of social order, it is a form of government. Socialism is one of the phases of communism and democracy is present everywhere, especially from below as a form of self-organization — house committees, local committees, women’s councils, etc., even the nomination of candidates for deputies and local councils, where the discussion from below took place. You make a lot of factual mistakes, getting into the discussion on this topic, which is easier to refer you to the classics of Marxism.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 19: 41
      +4
      Quote: Altona
      Democracy is not a form of social order, it is a form of government.

      Not in this case, because this form of government today implies the basis of a "social contract" - that is, yes, democracy is possible with slavery, but in our case, considering democracy in a Western way - it also determines the social system.
      Quote: Altona
      Socialism is one of the phases of communism and democracy is present everywhere.

      Not present. This is me as a person who has lived a little under socialism.
      Quote: Altona
      You make a lot of factual mistakes, getting into the discussion on this topic, which is easier to refer you to the classics of Marxism.

      (sighing heavily) And wherever they just sent me ...
      The classics have nothing to do with it - they described a kind of abstract vision of socialism, but I'm talking about the forms of democracy and socialism that they actually take in real conditions
  22. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 18: 51
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The degeneration of the ruling elite up to the inability to rule the state is the first sign of a poor social system.

    ------------------------------------
    That is, socialism, in your opinion, is a very bad system. Build, where you can get an education, work, housing and confidence in tomorrow is bad. Let it be, in your opinion, I personally think differently. The petty-bourgeois point of view has always been strong in its cave denseness.
  23. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 18: 54
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The problems of the USSR were much deeper - the economic crisis, for example

    https://remi-meisner.livejournal.com/185867.htmlh
    This topic is very deep and requires a separate study. All the factors that contributed to the fall of the USSR.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 11 2018 19: 37
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      That is, socialism, in your opinion, is a very bad system.

      Eugene, did you read my article? :)))) It actually says
      But if there is a state system that could be more effective for our country than the existing forms of Western democracies, then this will be a kind of improved form of socialism.

      If even after this you manage to accuse me of hatred of socialism and the primeval viewpoint - well ... request ok, i have to somehow survive this.
    2. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 April 11 2018 21: 05
      0
      Marxism is about productive forces and production relations. smile When productive forces move to a new level, production relations change. What happened to us. At the beginning of the last century, productive forces did not reach a level where there would be a radical change in production relations towards capitalist and a corresponding change in social consciousness, while we had a lot of active and, frankly, extraordinary and ingenious people who were carriers of a new social consciousness, who could say so protosocialist wrest power from the hands of an insufficiently strengthened bourgeoisie. And then it turned out that the inertia of public consciousness is a very strong thing, and even when further productive forces reached a sufficient level for socialism in my opinion, and production relations corresponded to them in many respects, it turned out that public consciousness was still largely associated with survivals of feudalism, which were especially aggravated by unfavorable external and internal factors and as a result there was a rollback to the previous OEF.
    3. yehat
      yehat April 15 2018 14: 28
      0
      screenshot comments

      1. unequal struggle - this is not entirely true. By the 60s, the struggle was already quite equal, given the CMEA and other countries supporting communism. There were enough forces, but already under Khrushchev the drain began - both ideology, and the transition to petrodollars, and strange unilateral relations with the allies, when we did not receive anything from them and much more.
      2. Severe damage - again disagree. They drove a lot of “ideological” ones, but after the war more than 5 million returned, many of which were quite ideological.
      3. Unevenness - I agree here, but again this is a consequence of the short-sighted policy of flirting with the locals, which Khrushchev began. This directly contradicted the very idea of ​​building the USSR and the construction element - unification.
      4. About the rejection of the dictatorship, you should not))) It was just a decomposition of the personnel policy.
      5. Peaceful coexistence would be the right decision if the sane own growth rate continued - cap. Because of this pressure, the socialist camps quite seriously changed their social policies, and under Khrushchev the country began to slide into philistinism.
      6. It is necessary to separate the revolution as an answer to the war and the USSR. These are different things. The USSR began to be built after the counter-revolution, when the bourgeois failed and this was the only way to somehow restore the standard of living.

      In general, all the points in the screenshot are false. Man bends everything in one direction and therefore everywhere is wrong.
  24. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 21: 55
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Not present. This is me as a person who has lived a little under socialism.

    -------------------------------
    I think, born in 1969, I did not live under socialism. You may have lived under socialism, but the humanities have not been given to you.
  25. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 21: 57
    0
    Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
    And then it turned out that the inertia of public consciousness is a very strong thing, and even when further productive forces reached a sufficient level for socialism in my opinion, and production relations corresponded to them in many respects, it turned out that public consciousness was still largely associated with survivals of feudalism, which were especially aggravated by unfavorable external and internal factors and as a result there was a rollback to the previous OEF.

    ------------------------------------
    They began to make a revolution in an absolutely peasant country, and the peasantry is a petty-bourgeois class, that is, who owns the means of production or wants to own them. It was not possible to retransmit people from the remnants of the past.
  26. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 22: 02
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    but in our case, the consideration of democracy in a Western way — it also determines the social system.

    -----------------------------------
    In our case, democracy does not determine the social system. You yourself begin to contradict. But we recognized that democracy exists under slavery and under socialism. Nowadays, democracy does not determine anything; in governance we see either the right people or the media people who are absolute zeros in governance. That is, democracy is simply a screen for the fulfillment of one's desires, for example, Plahotniuc in Moldova or financial capital in the USA. Democratically and Hitler came to power. In general, I am increasingly disappointed in your humanitarian level. Write about boats, it turns out much better for you.
    1. populist
      populist April 11 2018 23: 17
      0
      Altona
      In our case, democracy does not determine the social system. You yourself begin to contradict.

      In this case, I’ll support Andrey. It was democracy that determined the social system of developed capital countries in the second half of the 20th century. This social system is called the social state. Currently, these states are dismantling.
      But we recognized that democracy exists under slavery and under socialism.

      And under slavery, democracy influenced the system. Under socialism, democracy did not happen ... yet.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 12 2018 10: 09
      +4
      You know, I won’t argue with you. If you don’t see how democracy in Western countries is intertwined with the theory of social contract and thereby forms a social system - well, I’m not a visiting lecturer of the Knowledge society to open your eyes to the world.
      In fact, you are hooked on the letter of definitions - yes, strictly speaking, democracy cannot be called a social system, but the fact is that usually the words “Western democracies” mean the social system that has developed in Western countries, and it is based on democracy. In essence, I use the word "Democracy" both to define democracy itself and the social system of Western democracies, and I don’t see a big problem in this.
      Further, in the previous article, I just examined in detail what democracy can and cannot do — all these examples (with Hitler) were there. Everything is past you.
      But here's the funny thing - standing by the wall on a formal (that is, correct, and not generally accepted application of the terms), you are no less formally related to social processes as such. Under Soviet socialism, democracy formally existed, in fact - it instantly degenerated and it wasn’t close there, elections in the post-war USSR are purely profanation of the electoral process

      Instead of delving into the essence of the processes of Western democracy, you fall into conspiracy theology
      Quote: Altona
      Nowadays, democracy does not determine anything; in governance we see either the right people or the media people who are absolute zeros in governance. That is, democracy is simply a screen for the fulfillment of one's desires, for example, Plahotniuc in Moldova or financial capital in the USA.

      At the same time, this is not nearly the same — the whole question is the classiness of society — now the bourgeoisie is such, and it would be strange to expect it to abstract from the electoral process. But you need to understand that democracy for capital is not a screen, but simply the rules of the game by which the struggle for power is carried out and real elections in the West take place.
      Well, it’s very funny to read about the “complete zeros” of governance in the West. Every morning I ask my reflection in the mirror: “Andrey, if you are so smart, why are you still not rich?”, Which I advise you.
      Quote: Altona
      In general, I am increasingly disappointed in your humanitarian level.

      That's all, now I won’t sleep at night :)))))
  27. Altona
    Altona April 11 2018 22: 04
    0
    Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
    If the queen tomorrow imagines herself to be an absolute monarch, and not a formal representative and defender of the interests of the British bourgeoisie, then the story of the British monarchy will end there.

    ----------------------------
    She couldn’t imagine herself. Monarchs are not omnipotent; they also periodically chop heads.
  28. populist
    populist April 11 2018 23: 45
    +1
    To be continued?

    I do not know. Let's look at the response that this article will trigger. If the continuation of this topic will be interesting to the VO community, then why not?

    Researchers (term Y. Mukhin) are primarily interested in the essence of the issue, those search and disclosure of truth. And the responses are also interesting, but this is the third thing. People may not understand high reasoning.
    So, the sequel simply must be. I suppose that the problems of democracy under socialism will be revealed. Although everything is simple here.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 12 2018 15: 00
      +2
      Quote: populist
      Researchers (term Y. Mukhin) are primarily interested in the essence of the issue, those search and disclosure of truth. And the responses are also interesting, but this is the third thing

      So the whole point is that the author has already made certain conclusions for himself a long time ago :))) Accordingly, the question is not whether to "think further on this topic", but whether it is worth posting the results of your thoughts "
      1. Mooh
        Mooh April 12 2018 18: 03
        +1
        Of course it's worth it. So far, the minuses have not been introduced back, otherwise local patriots will hound.
      2. populist
        populist April 13 2018 06: 35
        0
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        So the whole point is that the author has already made certain conclusions for himself a long time ago :))) Accordingly, the question is not whether to "think further on this topic", but whether it is worth posting the results of your thoughts "

        Of course, it is worth publishing your ideas about democracy.
        I, too, long ago drew conclusions about the necessity and advantages of a democratic organization of power. But more than 90% of the country's population have a misconception about democracy, unfortunately Yes, and the article collected decent comments.
  29. vlad-58
    vlad-58 April 12 2018 06: 43
    +2
    Any democracy ultimately degenerates into plutocracy.
    The safety mechanism here is a tough dictatorship!
    __________________________________
    ... you cannot harness a horse and a trembling doe in one cart!
    ... a hybrid of cancer and swans? ...
    ______________________________
    So - the article is nothing but beautiful-hearted, logically verified and absolutely unrealizable reasoning on the topic: “how many good spirits and how many evil spirits can fit in the eye of a needle!” The task is difficult (even unsolvable in principle), but interesting!
  30. Altona
    Altona April 12 2018 07: 00
    +1
    Quote: vlad-58
    So - the article is nothing but beautiful-hearted, logically verified and absolutely unrealizable reasoning on the topic: “how many good spirits and how many evil spirits can fit in the eye of a needle!” The task is difficult (even unsolvable in principle), but interesting!

    --------------------------
    The author immediately introduces false premises and advises taking them at face value. For example, that the US Democratic Party is a party of some southerners who fought in the 19th century Civil War. This has long been a party of financial capital, and no southerners are there. As the late CPSU was a party of bourgeois, not the proletariat. And as for forms of government, there will always be military democracy in Russia. At one time, the king was elected democratically at the Council from the military and spiritual elite. This form of government degenerated when the nobles received liberties and the right not to serve in the army, that is, they degenerated into social parasites. Then the Soviets became the form of military democracy, the core of which was the Bolsheviks, which supplanted other parties and established their monarch-general secretary. Then they degenerated when they began to give themselves many concessions. Now time again requires a new military-political leader and Putin has been chosen with this condition. Because the factor of external threats is now very strong. And if Andrei you did not understand this, then live in your illusory world of "democracies and monarchies." The world is much more complicated.
  31. Altona
    Altona April 12 2018 07: 03
    +2
    Quote: populist
    In this case, I’ll support Andrey. It was democracy that determined the social system of developed capital countries in the second half of the 20th century. This social system is called the social state. Currently, these states are dismantling.

    -------------------------------------------
    The social system there is capitalist, and the social state there turned out as a result of the existence of the USSR. The forms of government there are very different, and monarchies also quite exist. And democracy in various doses is present everywhere, in many states.
    1. vlad-58
      vlad-58 April 12 2018 08: 28
      0
      Quote: Altona
      democracy in various doses is present everywhere, in many states.

      "You take a spoonful of the greatest poison, breed it in a barrel of the purest water ... And you give the patient a teaspoon a day ..." (C) A.M. Gorky "Dostigaev and others"
      ... nothing like? For example, capitalist "democracy"?
  32. Mooh
    Mooh April 12 2018 13: 22
    +1
    It is clear that all this is not easy and controversial, but the essence is that if we want democracy to work in our country, we must find within the country such forces whose interests are in conflict, but which cannot destroy or devour each other the bourgeoisie devour the working class, or doctors cannot devour scientists). Then it is necessary to give them political weight and make them compete with each other, even under conditions when the results of this competition would be measurable and understandable to the majority of the population. They need to be given the right and the duty to nominate a presidential candidate from their environment and it is clear that such an opportunity will strongly motivate the industry’s leadership or the representation of the estate for competition. Then democracy in our country will work quite well.

    Imagined a competition between the FSB and the Academy of Sciences for funding. Cried. I also like the idea of ​​an alliance between the Ministry of Defense and the social services. Development against the Ministry of Agriculture. And let's fuck them close and buy all the food abroad, all the same, they have been unprofitable for decades and have been letting people spend money on cockroach watermelons :) In short, the utopia from the region has to be managed by doctors and teachers. The viability of such a scheme is possible only with a very strong central authority, acting as an arbiter and preventing one of the branches from usurping power. And you have not developed a system of checks and changes in such power.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 12 2018 13: 44
      +2
      Quote: MooH
      Imagined a competition between the FSB and the Academy of Sciences for funding. Cried.

      And what caused your tears? :))) In fact, this is exactly what happens - ministries and departments are cut for financing. The only question is to give publicity and measurability to this ruby, so that we can evaluate the success of the leadership of these ministries. And if this adds to the obligation to nominate a presidential candidate from our ranks, then from "elections without a choice" "Putin and the midgets" we will come to the normal competition of strong candidates for the presidency
      1. Mooh
        Mooh April 12 2018 17: 25
        0
        They only chopped in the framework of some shadow groups and other Kremlin podkorovshchina about which we know almost nothing. And if all this fuss is brought to light by God and put in the departments “everyone for himself”, then the strong will inevitably devour the weak and we will come back to united Russia. In the meantime, they will eat each other, our beloved anarchy will be restored. That is, a new way to putinzima through the 90s is obtained. And our goal, if I am unmistakable, is to develop putinsim into an effective management system that can function without Putin.
  33. romandostalo
    romandostalo April 14 2018 00: 13
    +1
    Socialism really led us to the scientific, political, economic heights, but he also threw us from there into the dirt and game of the 1990's ...

    I strongly disagree that socialism was relevant to this .......
  34. Forever so
    Forever so April 14 2018 10: 13
    0
    I wonder how many years this Andrei ?? Blurring that Socialism has erupted somewhere there, it is in the best traditions of Solzhenitsyn and other corrupt partners. The USSR was destroyed as a result of a bourgeois coup prepared by the chairman of the KGB, Andropov. Any schoolchild knows this today. There are enough documents. The most successful years in the USSR were the years of Stalin's rule, and not only because unity of command, this is the basis of everything, but because its economic program, state capitalism and private property proved to be the most acceptable for the people and effective for the economy. After Stalin, even after surviving the Khrushchev upheavals, the country continued to live and develop, fighting almost against the whole world ruled by the Anglo-Saxon Jews. If not for the betrayal of Andropov and the degeneration of the entire ruling elite of the CPSU, hell would anyone kill the USSR.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 14 2018 12: 02
      +3
      Quote: Forever so
      I wonder how many years this Andrei ??

      Eugene, and you do not know that they don’t turn to strangers like that? Mom didn’t explain?
      But in general - 43, if that
      Quote: Forever so
      The USSR was destroyed as a result of a bourgeois coup prepared by the chairman of the KGB, Andropov. Any schoolchild knows this today.

      That's right - about schoolchildren :))))
      Well, adults who seriously studied the issue of the collapse of the USSR, who, unlike schoolchildren, spent tens of hours studying statistical reference books of the USSR and many other documents, know that the USSR was already in a deep economic crisis by 1975 and that a massive deferment of the USSR growth in sales of energy resources abroad. And in 1985-86, after the decline in energy prices, the "shop closed"
      But what schoolchildren care? They are ready to believe any delirium of the first conspiratorial sight that has come across. Schoolchildren, they are such schoolchildren ...
  35. NID
    NID April 23 2018 03: 34
    0
    As a mentally retarded, arrogant, uneducated, and even orderlies blotted out element, I will join the discussion on the topic of governance options.
    1. To talk about support, modernization, replacement and nonsense of the existing government of the Russian Federation, given the current (curse) mentality of the builder of socialism-communism (the path from Egypt to Moses, with 4 generations of the Israeli people): read - fairy tales, a very productive pastime of the type for fans of playing spools. Keep it up!!!
    2. From this 2 generations, with fear at the genetic level, headed by: executioner; rational, but not distant clown; faceless sist-matisti and a series of flashing shadows, including a living one, trying to fit into a fabulous socialist costume with a human face, besides the universal "approval" to wait for something else, the height of naivety. For the most part, it is even ready to cut a throat to someone who: does not want to eat beggarly salaries (drooling at penny payments for servants like Rosneft's official and pensions like State Duma deputies), who are outraged by the optimization of medicine, spending days in queues to doctors to stupid for the most part unsuitable, forced to earn extra money on the side. And also those who are against the bombing in Syria, the war in Ukraine, who are against the ala-USSR policy, supporting and filling up the well-known regimes of Latin America, Africa and Asia with currency. Clear examples of the consequences of the attitude to the successor of the previous state, showered with half-world loans for free, there are no numbers, but to the supporters of the present golden antelope, this is all God's dew.
    At the same time, those who are against the militarization of the economy and the strangulation of private business are at risk, however, not to the extent of our growth, which has not grown before the corresponding concepts, for the most part, to the people. Etc. What empire, let alone democracy? - Upper Volta with a club-rocket! The primitive communal form of government: he is the leader, like the alpha male of the tribe, he is the chief shepherd, he is the legislator, he is the manager of the whole economy, he is also the judge and supreme executioner and he is the redistributor of income in the relations of his subjects. Of course, not all of these signs have 100% confirmation, but certainly in other now existing primitive communal societies, for example, without missiles, there is ideally 100% set.
    3. So what kind of improved Swedish-Swiss socialism are we talking about?