Multiparty Russia. Is it possible and do Russians need it

After reading this headline, many readers may be outraged: they say, at what time does the author hang? As the all-knowing Wikipedia suggests, as of July 1, 2020, as many as 44 parties are completely legally registered in our country and are engaged in political activities! Nevertheless, if we ignore arithmetic that is not very relevant for this case and turn to life realities, we will have to admit that our Motherland is far from the true diversity of the political palette!

The thing is that any party can be considered real power only if it has real, and not illusory, chances to enter government bodies, both local and central, to participate in the formation of the government, and, consequently, in the adoption of truly fateful decisions regarding the foreign and domestic policy of the state. Then, it really should be considered a spokeswoman for the interests of the broad masses of people, and not someone’s pocket structure, ”created and functioning to pursue the highly specialized goals and tasks of its own sponsors.

It should be understood that a multiparty system that exists exclusively on paper is not unique to our country. In the same United States or Great Britain, the real political landscape of a state has been determined for centuries by two forces: in the first case, Democrats and Republicans, in the second - liberals and conservatives. The rest of the parties (which in these countries exist, believe me, are more than enough) play the role of extras; they don’t dare to claim any real influence. At the same time, mind you, both of these countries proudly bear the title of strongholds of parliamentarism and the beacon of democracy.

Incidentally, a real multi-party system does not always benefit the interests of the state. Basically, this situation is typical for some countries in Europe. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, as such, there is neither a ruling party nor a leader in terms of the number of sympathies of the party electorate. Hence the stunning discord in the local parliaments, the eternal struggle for the creation of capable coalitions, which often break up before they are born. The result of this is often very protracted parliamentary crises that make it impossible to make any important decisions, which require a majority, and are accompanied by a kaleidoscopic change of the ruling cabinet, whose members do not even have time to really get into the course of their affairs.

In our Fatherland, we will be frank, the parties today are divided, relatively speaking, not into “right” and “left”, liberal and conservative, but into imperious, pro-government and seemingly oppositional. With the opposition, too, everything is not so simple as it seems at first glance: some representatives of this camp, upon closer examination, give the impression of fake opponents of the authorities, who clearly know when, in what matters, and, most importantly, how seriously they can be criticized and “resisted” ".

The problem in this case, according to some domestic political experts, is that party organizations in Russia, in fact, are nothing more than springboards for professional politicians who go to the highest posts of state power. And they are created, and they function, as a rule, in an elitist environment rigidly closed to itself, where there is no way for “people from the street”. Therefore, we cannot talk about any kind of mass character and true demand for such associations among people a priori.

By the way, the fact that political activity in our country (as well as in the whole world) is by no means cheap is also playing a significant role here. Only very wealthy people can invest in it. The one who pays, as you know, also orders the music. However, in the Russian case, the specific whims of our rich are superimposed on this eternal principle: “With my money everything should be only in my opinion and nothing else!”

To a large extent, the same principle can be applied to the "opposition". With that only amendment: some of them are forced to earn other people's money, following the instructions of the "curators", both domestic and foreign. Moreover, for all its seemingly liberal nature inherent in Russian politicians, the disease of "leaderism" is characteristic of them no less than of "pro-government" party members.

Do our fellow citizens suffer from such a situation? The question is quite controversial. All venerable world political experts are inclined to believe that the existence of a one-party or multi-party systems in one country or another is based primarily on such a tricky thing as the national mentality and traditions of its population. The Russians, having plenty of "guzzled" and "guided and guiding" for almost eight decades, who later abundantly despised during the years of "perestroika", are generally not inclined to show confidence in any political parties and participate in their construction and activities.

Again, do not forget that the greatest discord reigned on our land precisely when the real multi-party system and pluralism of ideas and opinions blossomed violently in it. The “cadets” (representatives of the Constitutional Democratic Party), “Octobrists”, “Trudoviks”, Social Democrats and other gentlemen who rushed to power in February 1917 successfully ruined the army, law enforcement agencies and generally all power structures, after which they looked into impotence the impending final collapse of the empire. Incidentally, the October Revolution was not organized by the Bolsheviks alone. Everything was done in company with the socialist revolutionaries, anarchists, Mensheviks and some smaller caliber public.

Subsequently, the main problem appeared, over and over again calling into question the viability of a real multi-party system in our Fatherland. All parties that have real power in their hands, as a rule, are taken to “steer” the country in such a way that an immortal fable about a swan, cancer and pike immediately pops up in their memory ... Most of them seek sooner or later instead of decorous and civilized parliamentary debates to simply get rid of their opponents so that they don’t get confused with their “dissenting opinion” under their feet. Often in the most radical ways.

In fact, today in Russia there are not so many opportunities, but prerequisites for creating a real multi-party system. They can appear only with the birth of truly mass movements, whose leaders will not reduce their own political discourse to the issue of “turning” the country “to the West” or “to the East” and to promises to “expose” the representatives of the existing government in all conceivable and unthinkable “sins” "And" crimes. " The Russians will be able to go only for those who offer them instead of empty slogans or high-profile scandals a real recipe for how to make their life better. And if there are several such forces that have real and competitive programs, perhaps we will survive a multi-party system.

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

our country is far from the true diversity of the political palette!

And thank God! We still do not have enough real fascists. We have everything, but the bugs will crawl and itch.

[Uncle lee]

-Bolsheviks are not dumb. You sold the revolution.
You are a durole! The club is steroos!
Tell me, to whom did we sell it, to whom ?!
-And who knows, to whom the tribute is won, they sold him.
K-f "Two comrades served"

[Svarog]

In fact, today in Russia there are not so many opportunities, but prerequisites for creating a real multi-party system. They can appear only with the birth of truly mass movements, whose leaders will not reduce their own political discourse to the issue of “turning” the country “to the West” or “East” and to promises to certainly “expose” the representatives of the existing government in all conceivable and unthinkable “sins” "And" crimes. "

Indeed, there are no prerequisites and will not be until these leaders usurped power.
But my opinion is that many parties are not needed, one is needed with socialist ideology. As for the adoption of laws, I think that deputies should adopt them not from parties, but from the sphere of activity .. 5 people from science, 5 from art, 5 from medicine, 5 from industry, and so on ..

[svp67]

Quote: Svarog

But my opinion is that many parties are not needed, one is needed with socialist ideology.

No, there must be BALANCE in everything. And having a "left" party, you must have, just as "right" otherwise there will be no order.

Quote: Svarog

As for the adoption of laws, I think that deputies should adopt them not from parties, but from the sphere of activity .. 5 people from science, 5 from art, 5 from medicine, 5 from industry, and so on ..

These representatives will also have to choose and they will automatically become DEPUTIES

[Svarog]

No, there must be BALANCE in everything. And having a "left" party, you must have, just as "right" otherwise there will be no order.

It seems to me that nothing will work in this version. There will be "Duma massacre" and laws will not be adopted at all. A compromise option, not a party, but Dumtsy (from the word Think) and professionals in their field of activity, albeit non-party, but versed in their business.

[svp67]

Quote: Svarog

It seems to me that nothing will work in this version.

You know it works in the USA. Where the "left", with a very socialist program of "democrats", are fighting with the "right" - "republicans". But every system is afraid that it would stop in development.

[Svarog]

Where is the "left", with a very socialist program "democrats"

There are globalists, they don’t even smell of socialism ... more precisely, such initiatives come from them during the election program, but they rarely get to concrete actions.
But I think that in Russian realities this will not work out.
And in general, it is not necessary to copy from someone. Especially with the United States. I am not attracted to the United States by the way Russia was moving along their path, until zeroing .. The whole US power lies in the fact that at one time they deftly took advantage of the situation and saddled the world economy with the help of the dollar, when half the world was in ruins. And still use it. But what would happen if it weren’t for the Second World ..? And would the USA be in that form?

[svp67]

Quote: Svarog

There are globalists, they don’t even smell of socialism ...

It also "smells" ...

[mitroha]

Yes, in principle, and no, in the current version

[depressant]

My first requirement for the process of creating a party is that the fight against corruption cannot be the idea underlying the party program. As, for example, Roman Putin started it. The People Against Corruption party is pure populism on the part of the president's cousin and speaks of his political illiteracy. Corruption is the business of law enforcement. The fight against it must necessarily be listed as one of the points of the party program, but by no means be the main type of party activity. And I have no doubt that the fight against corruption is included in the program of any, even the smallest and little-known party in Russia.
The activity of a truly serious political party should be based, first of all, on the idea of ​​developing a country (industrial, agricultural, scientific, other). Everything else as the main idea is from the evil one. And since different people understand the further development of Russia in different ways, then there can be no less than two parties of equal size and influence. I believe this number is and will be limited. The programs of the two parties can be studied by any citizen and a comparison is made of how to achieve the well-being of the country. In this case, the struggle between the parties for the Duma majority will interest the population and will make an informed choice. When there are a lot of equal-sized parties, it’s like in a store - you don’t know which kinds of goods are dozens. Who will study and compare dozens of party programs? And if someone decides to do this, he will find that all the programs are twins. When there are two parties, a different approach to the future of the country will certainly be found and will be noticeable.
Before the Duma elections in 2021, we need to avoid a multiparty leapfrog. As for the current Duma parties, they are more likely dead than alive.

[hagen]

Quote: depressant

And since different people understand the further development of Russia in different ways, then there can be no less than two parties of equal size and influence. I believe this number is and will be limited.

In the process of humanization, human society at some point ceased physically
cut everyone who thinks a little differently than he. There was an opportunity to generate and express, including publicly, their own thoughts and ideas about the future development of society. And these perspectives in people's ideas are very, very different. There were people, charismatics, able to show their idea and captivate other people with it. No one knows how they appear. No one can guess how many there will be. Only one thing is clear - only such people can determine how many parties (ideologically homogeneous communities) can appear. How can one say how many parties are needed in Russia? The entire political field and the division of politically active citizens will depend on the availability of abilities and the scale of the figures who decided to organize parties. And if, for example, Prilepin or Starikov have different abilities in organizing groups of people and the talents of convincing in their own rightness and rightness of their own idea, which is different from all others, then the scale of their parties will be different. And no one will artificially balance their power. Yes, all kinds of legislation are possible, such as the rules for registering parties. But this will not change the essence. Yes, you can register parties depending on the number of their members. It is possible to create conditions under which people-carriers of different ideas will gather under one sign. But then the risk of dividing into fractions within the same batch will increase. I do not think that this will contribute to an increase in the quality of the party. People will gather in those communities whose ideas they share under the influence of their internal motivations, and not by the principles of quantitative restriction. Therefore, I believe that reasoning on such topics is acceptable only as an analysis of the state of public thought and energy, of the country's citizenship. The life of political parties, their activity and effectiveness, these are, rather, visible symptoms of the state of civil society. To apply quantitative measures to them, I think, is not a very correct right approach.

[Yura]

Quote: depressant

The activity of a truly serious political party should be based, first of all, on the idea of ​​developing a country (industrial, agricultural, scientific, other).

And here:

Quote: depressant

And since different people understand the further development of Russia in different ways, then there can be no less than two parties of equal size and influence. I believe this number is and will be limited.

with regards to two parties that can be limited, I don’t agree, it’s easier for two parties to agree among themselves than ten, nothing good will come of it, now if by and large there is an unspoken silent agreement between them and we see what we see. Parties must nominate their candidates for power as representatives of certain sections of the population; the parties themselves have nothing to do in the government and government; professionals should work there, I admit that the parties work in the State Duma as a legislative body and that’s all.

[ycuce234-san]

But what would happen if it weren’t for the Second World ..? And would the USA be in that form?

If there was no WWII, then during the WWII, the European countries managed to solve their problems immediately and completely, the WWII war turned out to be short and did not become a world massacre, or maybe it would not have happened at all.
The Germans, having removed the contradictions with other Europeans, would have organized some kind of variant of the European Union (much more powerful than the current one, in addition to the NATO) ... and would have stifled it with sanctions.
In general, if there hadn't been a WWI or had it been a "normal" war, there would have been nothing to catch the Russian Empire in Europe. Imagine that the world's strongest superpower (the alliance of the Germans and the French) is located on the same continent, not across the ocean and is not separated from the borders by mountain ranges; the way of the colonial world is preserved, on the whole, with rare exceptions, like the Americans (they live in this world in isolation and under sanctions, like the North Koreans - like a rebellious colony); the queen would be sad on the island.
However, very soon, in the historical sense, with this option of geopolitics - when you live on the same continent as a superpower, you will be able to get acquainted: China will overtake the Americans, gather its colonial system in Asia and Africa ... On the other hand, the European Union may also begin to strengthen, replacing the weakening Americans - and now you live exactly between the two superpowers on the same mainland.
In addition, Japan, which is not economically restrained, independent and has not survived the rout, is growing into a superpower too. Since China and Asia occupied everything in Asia and nothing shines on the mainland either, it begins to bite the barrel of North Americans.

[Nikolai Korovin]

- I am in confidence, running!
- For one run, two un ballot give!
- Pa-a-prishu not to joke with me!
That's the whole story.

[SRC P-15]

Quote: Svarog

But my opinion is that many parties are not needed, one is needed with socialist ideology. As for the adoption of laws, I think that deputies should adopt them not from parties, but from the sphere of activity .. 5 people from science, 5 from art, 5 from medicine, 5 from industry, and so on ..

If there is only one party, then laws will be adopted as "our" party says. And she doesn't care how your 5 people want to vote from science, 5 people from art, 5 people from medicine, etc. They will vote the way the "native party" needs it! We know, we have already passed. There must be a two-party system, with truly equal parties. And extras from small parties in power are not needed - they are like that only at first, and then, having understood "service", they join the pro-government party. Therefore, I think: there is nothing to fence in, we need a two-party system of power. Let them compete with each other on equal terms. But how to achieve equal conditions is, of course, a question of interest!

[Svarog]

Quote: СРЦ П-15

There should be a two-party system, with truly equal parties.

But there will be problems with this .. some of the parties will take it up .. and further along the road, the second party will be silently approved .. We don’t have any checks and balances and for this reason, I think the two-party system is not suitable .. Laws are passed, how beneficial that there are laws, the Constitution ..

[depressant]

Colleague Svarog, there will be no "approval" if there are serious people behind each of the two political parties, between whom there is a conflict of monetary interests. After all, we seem to have capitalism.
You can make out an example.
There is a region. Fish, furs, forests, minerals, tourism, etc. The region catches, produces, cuts, saws, receives tourists, deals with other things, and as a result of activities, local industrialists pay a tax of 1 billion rubles to the state treasury. Of course, I give the figure conditionally. So that the region can live and develop, the state transfers part of the tax back to it. Let's say 500 million rubles.
But here some oligarchs come to the region and part of the industry is squeezed from the locals. Suppose the depressed one continues to work, which means that the same tax of 1 billion rubles is going to the treasury. But oligarch firms are registered in Moscow, so they pay for the activities of the depressed ones there. And regionals, having lost part of the lactating enterprises, pay a lower tax to the treasury, which means they are less from the state and returned. This is not 500 million rubles, but, say, 300 million. But the population is the same! And it gets depressed. The head of the region appeals to the government with a request to help: wages are reduced, unemployment, no development, people from the region are running away! Having sympathized with the government, it is allocating a subsidy that does not compensate for the lost 200 million rubles, and, say, only 40 million, has been spent on state employees. And he advises spinning yourself - capitalism is! But when this money goes to the region, part of it will settle in bureaucratic offices of various ranks, and the region will receive shisha without oil instead of the agreed rate. Depression in the region is increasing.
Here is a conflict of interest for you - deputies from the regionals and oligarchs. If in the State Duma they clash along the party line, then I assure you that there will be no "approval" from either one or the other, but there will be a fight between each for his own interest. And then the country's leadership will be forced to check the efficiency and usefulness of the previously adopted laws in the new conditions of their internal political activities. How it will do this is the second question. But the situation in the Duma will be really tense, with a preponderance in one direction or the other.
I repeat, the example is purely conditional. You can consider conflicts of any other monetary interests. But, unfortunately, only such parties will be able to move the country at least somehow in the current political conditions. Another thing is that we do not want to accept it.

[Svarog]

You can consider conflicts of any other monetary interests. But, unfortunately, only such parties will be able to move the country at least somehow in the current political conditions. Another thing is that we do not want to accept it.

Yes, they don’t ask us what we want .. But the two billionaires will always agree .. but the problems of the population are of little interest to them .. I still have my opinion, as long as there are no checks and balances, the two parties will turn into one anyway . In general, in my opinion, the Anglo-Saxon system does not suit us .. Lawyers should deal with legislation, and ideas on how to better equip a house should come from honored and respected husbands .. these people should be elected, but each from their own environment ..

[depressant]

Svarog, right! Billionaires will agree among themselves. Actually, they have already agreed, and for a long time. At their exits, they go to different Davos. So let them create their own party under the imperial slogan of bringing the country to one of the leading economic positions in the world in large-scale production.
And let the regionals unite in their own under some useful social-democratic slogan. And let both fight for the highest political power.
What is the argument of the oligarchs? The ability to invest heavily in government projects.
The argument of the regionals is separatism. Regionals will create laws that allow taking from the oligarchs who want to open large-scale production in their territories, a substantial tax tribute to local budgets. Well, or a large one-time fee. In the interests of the regionals will be the adoption of a law on local small-scale production, such as will allow all taxes to be sent to the local budget. As well as the law on tax from medium-sized enterprises, allowing a significant part of the tax to leave in the regional treasury. The possible separatism of the regions will create a conflict between the parties of the regionals and the oligarchs and force the latter to fear losing their production (it doesn’t hang in the air, but is located in a separatist-minded region) to make concessions, and then small and medium-sized enterprises will flourish in the regions , then the prosperity of the population, separatist sentiment will come to naught. What will be of interest to the oligarchs, and the central government, and the country's population as a whole. And all thanks to the joint conflicting lawmaking of parties.
And now the regions are a cow, which the center is trying to milk dry, the regional authorities are not interested in attracting investments, it is easier for them to stand in front of the center with outstretched hands and in their heads to gradually hatched separatist ideas. The oligarchs in the regions are messing around.

[Nikolai Korovin]

I remember that Mikhail Sergeyevich was broadcasting something a lot about the consensus and the system of checks and balances. Oh, this is not an easy job - drag a hippopotamus out of a swamp!

[depressant]

More talkative and limited. Because it is impossible to create a system of checks and balances within one party. A party decision, after even the most heated discussion within one party, is made by voting. The decision made is binding on all party members. Dissatisfied - on the way out! From the Duma United Russia rarely leaves. Well it is an uncritical feeder. One party that predominates in numbers is always a feeder. Party "What do you please! Everything for your money!", Party "Good!"

[U-58]

Well, right, the Gray Council on the Minbar.
However, all this is consistent with the caste system of our ancestors. And there is something ..

[astepanov]

any party can be considered a real force only if it has real, and not illusory, chances to enter the government <> Then it really should be considered the spokesman for the interests of the broad popular masses

Here is a small contradiction: we have parties that press the chairs in the government, but at the same time do not express the interests of the "broad masses" - unless, of course, we consider representatives of industrial and banking capital as such. But in the combination of the words "oligarch" and "masses" one can hear "fecal matter".

[Matroskin]

Quote: Svarog

As for the adoption of laws, I think that deputies should adopt them not from parties, but from the sphere of activity .. 5 people from science, 5 from art, 5 from medicine, 5 from industry, and so on ..

Absolutely agree. It is difficult to imagine the most useless professions than politicians, political scientists and PR specialists (traders and money lenders too). Why a politician? To think how to spoil another policy? Why a political scientist? To explain what the politician meant? For the life of mankind they are not needed. What is the point in them at all, why do people spend time on this? Let the forest be cut down or retrained as welders, join the work, the elderly retired, let them do modeling in the mugs (for motor skills), it’s time for many to come.

[Nikolai Korovin]

Such a law will not pass the Duma.

[depressant]

And I do not agree, Matroskin.
The country lives by the laws, which is a civilization law in itself. This means that someone can propose laws, but the people must approve them. You can do this without his approval! Let's say 5 deputies from art decided that the country needs the Cheops pyramid. To familiarize the people with the aesthetics of the ancient world, so to speak. And I assure you, they will justify it in such a way that you say in confusion: "And how did I live before - without the pyramid of Cheops in Russia?" And at this time, 5 scientific deputies will develop a law according to which Russia cannot do without the world's largest collider. And you, too, will cry out "How am I still! ..."? For those scientists will be extremely convincing. Etc.
In the end, someone will convince the others, for example, that the Cheops pyramid is the very thing that the country needs, they will adopt a law by consensus, and it turns out that the people did not ask about the feasibility of a legislatively executed project, since the opinion of the people does not need. For the people, in the opinion of the pundits themselves, are no one to call him in any way. A people, by definition, is dark, stupid, a priori does not understand its happiness, it is generally an animal, and therefore its opinion can be neglected - in its own civilization interests ...
Let's finally decide.
The State Duma is a body representing the interests of the whole people and, in the person of deputies, is allowed to develop and approve laws. All people are admitted, in general! Therefore, deputies cannot be representatives of only very small groups within it.
Another thing, as the Duma ordered the trust placed. Given the fact that when creating a law, a deputy has the right to seek advice from any relevant scientific institution in the country. Here is just to those figures from art, science, medicine, other things that Svarog's colleague is talking about. Does it appeal?

[paul3390]

And you don’t have to invent anything. It is necessary to return the Stalinist system of power. Everything has already been invented and worked out before us ..

[Mikhail Ya2]

Without going into the personality of Stalin himself, the system, fighting on the talents of one person, collapses after the death of that one.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Mavrikiy

= our country is far from the true diversity of the political palette! =
And thank God!

Support!
What is the main goal of any party? - Rise to power! And the fact that she will fulfill her promises upon coming to power is not even necessary.
If the husband and wife do not understand which of them is the main one, then what is the life of the children? Eternal scandals.
If the husband and wife are in different parties, the family will be?
The program of any party is for all good versus all bad. Only the ways to achieve it are different.
History teaches us that any, the best party, degenerates over time. What happened to the CPSU. But, it should be noted that degeneration affected only the top of the party.
What is the conclusion?
Many parties - why do people need them? They are needed only by the leaders of these parties, for personal purposes.
Two parties - so what? The bickering is undercover to seize power;
One party - there is no competitor represented by a candidate for power.
What to do?
One party, but in the legislative branch 50% of the party, and 50% of the PARTY, but always from the PEOPLE. Not lawyers, entertainers, journalists, and other athletes, but namely quite competent engineers, workers, doctors, teachers, and other working people.
And there are many such people in Russia.

[Nikolai Korovin]

I remember that Chairman Mao, shortly before the "Cultural Revolution", put forward the slogan: - Let 100 flowers bloom, let 1000 schools flourish! - The palette was good. All were sent to reeducation - to dig ditches. Defenders of theses. It seems that Chairman Xi himself was there. 10 times 000 years for Chairman Mao!

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Nikolai Korovin

Chairman Mao shortly before the "Cultural Revolution"

Is he your idol?

[Nikolai Korovin]

Not at all. I just quoted a little. It is useful for informing the public to recall on what ideological basis the present great and mighty China has grown, but many probably do not know. This is me about the political palette.

[Maki Avellevich]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

What is the main goal of any party? - Rise to power!

Unfortunately, this is true.
however, there is such a way that the party or at least its leader has an idea, a vision of the future that is sincerely desired and exerted all efforts to realize it.
rarely but it happens.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Maki Avellievich

however, there’s a way that the party, or even its leader, has an idea,

Give an example of at least one Bourgeois party that has at least some idea.

[Civil]

Exactly, to leave only United Russia, eh, it was necessary to spell it out in the Constitution. One people, one country, one party, one leader.

[depressant]

It is, colleague Civic. And now everyone shouts in unison: "Stagnation! Stagnation!" and only a few seers - "Danger! Danger!", and even more rare - "Developing! Developing!"
In search of signs of development, I have been going to "Made by us" for a long time, eagerly catch those signs on "Made by me". They are. Separate. But they are few - given the size of the country and its capabilities. There are a lot of things planned. But the main thing in history is the rate of increase in national wealth, which means the country's survival.
I will give an example (I gave it on another topic). You started general cleaning, but your energy is not very good. One corner was freed from dirt and while you are freeing another from it, the first one is littered again, and your cleaning - ad infinitum. Also - renovated. And then they come and say: "Your house is being demolished!" And then it turns out that in the demolished house you have always lived in an untidy environment. Or without repair.
President Putin is not at all delighted with the "untidiness of the house", he has repeatedly stated that there is no time to swing, which has long become a meme. From
Party "United Russia" he once publicly denied - have you forgotten? - and used it only as a galley stabilizer, i.e. against the buildup. But United Russia is not a development party, since it is not only "one" by definition, but also the only one. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was once the only one, and what a spirit-lifting goal! Nevertheless, the house collapsed, it was demolished - precisely because of the uniqueness of the CPSU. There was no one else with the same capabilities as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union who could shout: "Earthquake! The house will collapse!" - someone who could, within the framework of the authority of the alternative party, show the people the essence of the meanness that is happening, organize resistance.
The people themselves will not organize! He himself is not even self-insulating! Even if there are separate, correctly screaming authorities!
The house collapsed ...
Caught in the turbulent course of the ocean of history. Swam, who could, to a small boat, gradually finish building it to the galley, rowing slowly ...
Now, when loot is put forward as a "spirit-lifting" idea, which, according to human history, cannot be given without a struggle, then there is a struggle! Putin drove Medvedev, and Medvedev officially headed the United Russia as a leader, - drove for the failure of the organization of the movement in the economy - the galley under construction is slowly increasing in size! Too slow! And the course of history is fast. You look, an aircraft carrier passing by will economically demolish and sink it. Or a whole squadron - do not shoot missiles at the enemy! He's not a military man - an economic adversary. Now it is.
And it's not a fact that replacing EP with NPK ("The People Against Corruption" by Roman Putin) will not be an awl for soap.
So we need two equal parties, each of which will jealously follow the other and shout "You rowing in the wrong place, your mother!" And since the shouts will be public and supported by the authority of this or that party, an active movement will go on among the people. And then I look, everyone is depressed)))
The main thing is that, working for themselves, both equal parties should work for the good of the country, and not for neighboring "aircraft carriers".

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: depressant

So we need two equal parties, each of which will jealously follow the other and shout "You rowing in the wrong place, your mother!"

Quote: depressant

The main thing is that, working for themselves, both equal parties should work for the good of the country, and not for neighboring "aircraft carriers".

Lyudmila Yakovlevna, are you an idealist and an optimist in one bottle?
Look, for 30 years now, capital has been flowing out of Russia, with all the diversity of the mass of parties. Where did you get the idea that if there are "two equal" parties, then this disgrace will stop because the opposition party will cry out - "What the hell are you allowing capital to float to the" neighboring aircraft carrier? "And where did you get the idea that this" equal size " "Is it not the same bourgeois party as the pro-government party? That this party was not concocted by the very ones who are taking capital to other aircraft carriers?"
I believe that a multi-party system is harmful to the people, it splits the people, makes the people divided. The people are rallying IDEA and the party that put forward it with their goal.
The bourgeois parties, whether there are many or two of them equal, cannot in principle advance any idea; this contradicts their nature.
An example to you is the USA. Two equal-sized parties clashed in the struggle for power, and at that time chaos in the country. And this chaos is encouraged and fueled by the opposition party now. If only to overthrow our Donald, Trump.
But there is a way out! Responsibility of the authorities to the people. Above the authorities should hang the "Domokles sword" of criminal (!) Punishment for worsening the life of the people.

[depressant]

Colleague Krasnoyarsk! Yes, I am an idealist and a bitter cynic in one bottle. We now have capitalism, and this is how we need to build it - in this hypostasis. In the struggle for power, two bourgeois parties will greedily seek out each other's mistakes and make them the subject of a public showdown here and now. Think of the Watergate in the United States or the Clinton case. The reaction was immediate and harsh. Not like the Furgal case. We've been waiting for 15 years! The implementation of incriminating evidence came only when he "stumbled".
And yes, in some ways the convergence of both parties will be. Well, bourgeois, where do you get to from this?
With regard to the withdrawal of capital. Now Putin seems to have an advantageous position, he is above everyone. But all the oligarchs are against him, this is a huge force. Any lawyer is at their disposal. As with Khodorkovsky it is already impossible, too much resonance among foreign "friends". The oligarchs are an extremely close-knit, arrogant group. One person cannot cope with them - even taking into account the possibilities available to him. So we need to knock these greedy and uncompromising heads together, dividing them into two political parties. Let the issue with the withdrawal of capital be decided by themselves, let them create a situation when it is more profitable not to withdraw. I assure you they know the conditions of this situation. Why does Putin not want to let them run the country? Maybe he is afraid of losing power, which will be tantamount to a threat to his life? I believe it is different: they can grapple so that the state will collapse. Due to Russophobia, cultivated for generations in their unpatriotic environment, they can simply sell Russia to foreigners. But it turns out that they are already doing it! Under Putin! Avtovaz, Rusal, Sberbank, etc.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Civil

Exactly, leave only United Russia,

But what difference do we have with what it is called? The goal of all parties is the same - power.
Do you really not understand that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the country, and therefore with what name the party would not have a majority in the Duma, will be a bourgeois party. Others simply will not be allowed. Even if you have to fill the country with blood.
Why do you think Zyuganov won the election did not become president? Because he was warned - you will become the culprit of the civil war. Something like this.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Civil

Exactly, to leave only United Russia, eh, it was necessary to spell it out in the Constitution. One people, one country, one party, one leader.

Do you prefer Swan, Cancer and Pike?
Just don’t think that I am campaigning for EP !!!
I am simply sure that any other bourgeois party will do the same.

[depressant]

Krasnoyarsk, here is the basis for the creation of two parties - regionals and oligarchs, namely:

"The struggle of the elites for a national plan for economic recovery is acquiring a new scale. President Vladimir Putin said that the government plan will be integrated into national projects. All influence groups in the country are interested in this (this is a new opportunity to get funding for the necessary industry). Including the head of government RF Mikhail Mishustin.
Vladimir Putin suggested including the items of the government plan for economic recovery in national projects at a meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects on July 13. “I propose to immerse, integrate the measures of this plan into national projects, to work out all significant organizational issues,” the president said. According to him, the government needs to do this work with the participation of the State Council within three months. "

This is from the last. That is, a fight for the money of the state and the opportunity to fearlessly invest your own. Without parties, it is impossible for real. Priority will be given to those who are closer to some important imperious body. Offended are formed. Strengthen the withdrawal of their capital. If in the struggle with each other, there will be no offense, but there will be requirements for additional projects under the patronage of the state.

[Livonetc]

In our country, a party is in principle a discredited concept.
At the moment, there is power of an average in efficiency, but an existing system and a specific person with his team.
A multi-party system already exists.
Everything is as it was before.
We are talking Lenin!
Mean Party!
We are talking Party!
We mean Lenin! "
Yes, until then it was about the same.
"God save the king!"
As soon as they tried to radically change everything, they received a sea of ​​blood and in the end they returned to approximately the same concept.

[Nikolai Korovin]

The very concept of "political party" seems to be outdated. All the time there is some kind of renix. Like the People's Democracies. What is Democracy? People power. It turns out - the country of people's power of the people. Nonsense! But no one noticed for 40 years, as if it should be so. And now, too - if a group of people declares that they are for all good versus all bad, this does not mean that they are a political party. Or at least this group is hiding its political affiliation. So that the public does not vote for the program that no one has seen in their eyes, but for the logo and the leader. And in the beacon of democracy, this is also completely the case. What are Republicans and Democrats? Yes, these are complete synonyms. A republic is a state structure when power belongs to the people, even if only formally, and therefore the republicans are also democrats. And Democrats are Republicans. Has anyone seen a Monarchist Democrat? Something one. Either a democrat or a monarchist. Well, it’s true, it’s kind of hard to find a monarchist now, but in fact there is a certain amount, only they don’t advertise their views. They act quietly. It is hoped that when all the other parties everywhere are completely bankrupt, then they will appear - Hello! Here we are! Only we know how to turn this whole mess into order. “But for that it still needs the public to be sick of the widespread anarchy. Otherwise it won't work. If there are islands of stability, things will not work out.

[Knell wardenheart]

There are no two points in our country that make it possible to operate a more or less adequate multi-party system.

1) This is an elementary political culture. People can lie for as long as they want, steal astronomically, openly lobby and falsify, spit on the rules that seem to be "embossed in granite" and rewrite them, again spitting on the rules that exist for this - and at the same time not experience any serious discomfort from their colleagues in the shop - because EVERYONE_ DOES_SO. Everyone has a stigma in a cannon, cheeks eaten, and apartments, factories, factories and steamers (or yachts, airplanes ..)

2) We do not have an elected culture. People don’t dig deep into the activities of those who give their votes, are not interested in their business, their past, their dirty deeds, betraying that these are often dishonest people. The deep-rooted domestic irresponsibility that has remained since peasant times also manifests itself here when a person easily gives his voice to some kind of thief or an old pop character, who knows absolutely nothing, knows nothing and then logically does nothing in politics, except for many years wiping his pants and voting in droves at best.

All this leads me to very sad thoughts that democratic institutions do not work in a society where the percentage of frankly stupid people is above a certain value. Democracy turns into an endless farce until the moment when such a country does not get a cap, does not break up into smaller, but more viable fragments or% of stupid people, simply decreases in the course of civil wars to the maximum permissible value.

[Prisoner]

You are an American? In the USA, party bonuses steal astronomically and kill opponents, and substitute, etc. etc. And their election culture is also very strange. And the fools there ...

[Knell wardenheart]

Do you seriously believe that an American knows / will sit on the "Military Review", translate hundreds of frankly empty comments, and then write the answers? ) What does the USA have to do with it - if it is in the top of the article about Russia? I do not care how "they" are there, you are probably an expert in this matter (but for some reason I am an American), I am concerned about the affairs of the country in which I live and its problems. I think this is a problem - an array of downright stupid, like chickens, and greedy people. Who love to ooze with pathos for long-gone events, and for this pro .. skip today and tomorrow.
All my life I observe this and the endless crowds of some fools, replacing others, who wore off their "hurray" and gave one power, threw them and wiped with their old carcasses everything that the next generation will give to another, exactly the same, stomping exactly on those the same rails and singing exactly the same songs. It's groundhog day as it is) I'm curious when and how it will end.

[Prisoner]

Definitely. Even as they sit, bore and crap. "Democracy turns into an endless farce until the moment when such a country does not get a hat, does not fall into smaller... ". (c) How did they turn it out, eh? Dreams of Svidomites, liberals and mattress" friends "in one bottle.

[Nikolai Korovin]

Chur, chur! This is stolen from us, sir. And they are lobbying culturally.

[Nikolai Korovin]

There is no alternative to the principle of universal, equal, secret ballot, and therefore, as it is, it will be so.

[hagen]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

All this leads me to very sad thoughts that democratic institutions do not work in a society where the percentage of frankly stupid people is above a certain value.

Your thoughts have long been predicted. Read B. Show or A.P. Chekhov. But you should not be sad. This is all reality, and we must be able to take it into account in our practical activities. As long as human society is alive, it will one way or another work out ways to live together in a limited area. So politicians will be in demand forever. But they will be in demand precisely by people. And the quality of the politicians whom it will call to solve their problems will depend on the quality of civil society. And if today democracy is turned into a farce, then this is an indicator that we, as a society, are not yet pulling to a higher level. Obviously, they are still too stupid and not far-sighted. But, judging by the deepening of humanization (we at least have stopped each other and do not cut out those who think differently), there is still progress in development.

[Knell wardenheart]

History, however (although I agree with you in terms of sooooo slow but still progress) does not inspire me with optimism in this matter either. I remember how incredibly humane the tsarist government was in relation to, so to speak, active revolutionaries. They were not exiled to four walls the size of my kitchen, and not for decades, and they were not even shot - but to exile, from which they fled rather briskly - but even the repeated dispatch did not bear the seal of a multiple aggravation of the punishment. Then the Bolsheviks came - and we all know how "humane" they treated this issue. They increased the terms by 2-3 times, built a whole punitive empire of forced labor and executions for much less. We can object and say that it was such a paradox - a regression generated by the tightening of time and environment. But now, in a rather long period of relative dormancy (relative to the first half of the 20th century), we do not observe a gradual humanization of this system - although, of course, they have already stopped shooting a handful of grain for theft. Although the state is already completely different and de jure we signed all those noodles that the USSR did not want to sign.

I mean, from the times when people in ecstasy shouted "we demand to shoot the enemies of the people, kulaks and counter-revolutionaries!" , fiercely, furiously hating some dudes for a couple of lines in the Pravda newspaper - they are very close to us. As before, a huge part of society will rush to vomit, as soon as the situation reaches the "indication" of enemies - liberals, LGBT, some mythical American spies. Yes, perhaps under this sauce, mass executions will no longer take place (and are they needed? If you can repeatedly judge and imprison for a long time, and, "thanks to the Bolsheviks", after all, there is where to imprison) - but some amendment laws legalizing everything that your heart desires.

It seems to me that it’s time for us to grow as far as possible to distance ourselves from such crap and not to experience illusions about where all this leads us.

[hagen]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Then the Bolsheviks came - and we all know how "humane" they were about this issue. They increased the terms by 2-3 times, built a whole punitive empire of forced labor and executions for much less.

It is quite logical. The Bolsheviks of those years were extremists. Others will not master the revolution. But the time was not vegetarian either. I had to really survive. It was not for nothing that they said that after WWI there was not peace, but a respite in an unfinished war. In addition, the revolution that took place was of a class nature, and the working class that came to power cleansed society of counter-revolution. Interestingly, after Stalin's death, during the first rehabilitation of those convicted under political offenses, less than 5% were rehabilitated, and in Ukraine, less than 1% of those convicted. It was only later that everyone was recognized indiscriminately as victims. So the empire of the Soviets is not entirely "punitive", or rather not even punitive at all, although tough, cannot be taken away.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

As before, a huge part of society will rush to vomit, as soon as the situation reaches the "indication" of enemies - liberals, LGBT, some mythical American spies

I don’t think such a huge one. But I agree, we have them ... As neighbors on the Maidan. And if a handful of active gorlopanov, dissatisfied with everything and everything, do not turn their heads in time, they can also make a coup.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

It seems to me that it’s time for us to grow as far as possible to distance ourselves from such crap and not to experience illusions about where all this leads us.

I have to, I agree. But I have no illusions that this will come true in my lifetime. The show once said - 2 percent of people - thinks, 3 percent - thinks they think, and 95 percent of people will die better than they think. You can argue about the numbers, but I agree with the general ratio.

[parusnik]

In fact, today in Russia there are not so many opportunities, but prerequisites for creating a real multi-party system.

..... So they didn’t let her form ... as soon as she began to form, the leading parties put forward the initiative of a 5% barrier and state financing of parties that passed this barrier ...

They can appear only with the birth of truly mass movements

.. Who will let them appear? The violinist is not needed, and Bolivar will not bear two ... The existing official parties will not allow this to be done ...

[Thrifty]

What is the use of a heap of parties if they are not allowed to go to REAL power and close? A country devoid of idiology, devoid of true goals and the vector of its development, will forever wander like a ship in a storm from the fire and into the fire, there will be many beautiful words, but there will be no concrete deeds! For those who know how only to destroy, to build it is not their creed, tightly crushed power under themselves.

[aglet]

"like a ship in a storm to wander out of the fire and into the fire"
said beautifully, but now it’s easier, like .. a flower, damn it, in the hole

[krops777]

Multiparty Russia. Is it possible and do Russians need it

The problem of Russia in my opinion is the lack of a real counterweight to the EP, that is, the party is equally strong. In other words, liberals were created, but conservatives were not born yet, and this is a real problem, because there are many who are not satisfied with EP and want to rock a political boat without balance even more.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: krops777

Multiparty Russia. Is it possible and do Russians need it

The problem of Russia in my opinion is the lack of a real counterweight to the EP, that is, the party is equally strong. In other words, liberals were created, but conservatives were not born yet, and this is a real problem, because there are many who are not satisfied with EP and want to rock a political boat without balance even more.

So EP - it's conservatives and liberals in one bottle

[7,62x54]

All this "multi-party system" was needed to pull away votes and disunity. But after the people voted for an extension, the autocrat's throne loomed ahead. The monarchy returns to Russia.

[Fitter65]

Multiparty Russia. Is it possible and do Russians need it

There can be many parties in Russia, and Russians can choose a candidate for mayor, governor, deputies from any party - if this party is "United Russia" !!!!

[U-58]

Well, he proposed one non-partisan new path without turning to and fro, for the development of the whole country and citizen in particular.
And then he was littered with heaps of manure, a dousing of empty but not closed bills and kilograms of gold.
Moreover, the underlying idea of ​​this attack was a simple selfish desire to keep rewarded with overwork, to keep the possibility of further safe cutting of coupons from a bundle of state money.
All this was furnished with such a degree of legitimacy of actions that it was already breathtaking from the ingenuity of the ruling nouveau riche.
And until people who want to end this orgy (albeit from the depths of the ruling system) appear on the scene, anyone who encroached on the rotten foundations would be a "thief and impostor".
A well-crafted herd of electorates itself hoots him ..

[boris epstein]

Generally, according to political science, there are only three parties (regardless of what they are called): capitalist, communist and nationalist. Then there are branches of these parties depending on funding sources. The example of the United States does not pass. There, both competing parties are capitalist and differ only in what group of money bags they represent. And here you still need to figure out: the number of members of the CPSU and the Komsomol is about 35 million. If you count the number of members of all parties in the Russian Federation, it will exceed this number. party members does not speak about the quality of the party's work. Before the October Revolution, the RSDLP (b) numbered from 25000 to 30000, and the right SRs numbered more than a million. Moreover, the Right SRs had great influence among the peasants. And the peasants made up more than 90% of the population of the Russian Empire. But the Bolsheviks won, and the peasants followed them. At the end of the civil war, the Red Army was 5,5 million people. There were no more than 1,5 million people in all the White Guard formations, and all the other parties were on the side of the White Guard. Yes, before the Moscow uprising of Popov's anarchist detachment in 1918, there were anarchists, a few Socialist-Revolutionaries, a few Mensheviks in Lenin's government before the Moscow uprising of Popov's anarchist detachment in XNUMX. are sold by fanatics, and scum use the fruits. " Therefore, periodic purges of the party are urgently needed. After all, the degeneration of the CPSU began after the end of the purges of the party and the arrival of the Khrushchev call to it.

[rocket757]

. Multiparty Russia. Is it possible and do Russians need it

There is no unity and consent in the country in the most important MASS, PEOPLE.
And then at least a hundred parties, at least mullen, will be ... but nothing good will be.
There is no real, unifying force ... but there are more than enough ideas, beautiful and different. Not yet appeared Danko, which was worth following.

[A.TOR]

What is a multi-party system and why is it needed?
This, of course, can only be about a country whose population wants to have progress in the standard of living of not only the elite, but also the rest of the population.
So: different political parties express the interests of different population groups - in general, it should be understood that in any country with a more or less many economies, the economic interests (and they are the most important!) Of different sections of the population are not just different - often they are generally in conflict .
This, unfortunately, is a historical fact.
The presence of political parties makes it possible not only to convey their interests and aspirations to a certain "supreme power" - a multiparty system ensures a peaceful, constructive exchange of views between representatives of different groups of the population (with, at times, opposing interests) to work out solutions that will satisfy everyone.
The best option is generally to reject the "supreme Areopagus of political priests" in the person of all kinds of "national leaders" and "fathers of the people" and the transition to a competitive political struggle of representatives of different views on the country's development.
However, this is not the destiny of all nations.

[awdrgy]

And why do we need a party? -It is all from the evil one that one that several

[Valerikk]

in our country, as many as 44 parties are quite legally registered and conduct political activity!

Tens (or even hundreds of thousands) of balabol, useless to the people.

[Undecim]

Judging by the tone of such "analytics" and the regularity of its appearance, I would not be surprised at the release of a series that the abolition of serfdom in Russia was caused solely by the intrigues of liberals and Anglophiles, and it is time to correct this mistake.

[Ronald Reagan]

Do you want to say no? All these "freedoms" imposed from outside, only brought troubles to Russia.

[Undecim]

Judging by the course of your thoughts, really. Now, if you were periodically flogged at the stable of some sort of Prince Mikhalkov and drove the mind into the back gate, you see - enlightenment would have come.

[Ronald Reagan]

Do not switch to emotions and personalities.
Russia has lost everything, letting in Western liberals. In the 91st they wanted freedom, and what did they get?

[Maks1995]

Ne so, sove ne so.
Real parties are a sign of at least someone independent wealth and movement in society. So that was who and for what.
And if "there is no money, but you hold on" - then the money is issued only in one place.
For example, the life president in Africa. Or Kim in Korea.

In the meantime ... the rivals of PZHV are not needed, they are not needed at all ... France, the Maidan, the arrest of South Korean presidents, the Chinese way or cheap gas, the rulers do not need at all ... money loves silence ....

[Konstantin Shevchenko]

Multi-party system, the principle of "divide and rule" is laid. One-party system - whoever is not with us is against us.
Both systems contain pros and cons relatively opposite.
Any party system is designed to separate people in one state, it creates conflicts of interest.

[Dimy4]

--You are for whom? For the Bolsheviks, al for the Communists? Do not lie, or we’ll put it to the wall.

[Dart2027]

A real multi-party system always leads to the fact that

In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, as such, there is neither a ruling party nor a leader in terms of the number of sympathies of the party electorate. Hence the stunning discord in the local parliaments, the eternal struggle for the creation of capable coalitions, which often break up before they are born. The result of this is often very protracted parliamentary crises that make it impossible to make any important decisions, which require a majority, and are accompanied by a kaleidoscopic change of the ruling cabinet, whose members do not even have time to really get into the course of the affairs entrusted to them.

There is no other way.

[MBRSS]

Parties will always be. Another thing is whether there will be party lists in the elections. I think that such lists are needed. Moreover, you need to lower the threshold for passage to the assembly from 5 to 3%. This will reduce the likelihood of usurpation of power by one or two parties.

[Lara Croft]

As comrade used to say. Chernomyrdin: "Whichever party you create in the Russian Federation, all the Communist Party works out" ...

[Archon]

no party at all needed. it is not fair when the people choose a party, and the party sets what representatives it wants.
the system of people's deputies seems to me the most fair. and from parties in any quantity there is no sense, only breed feeders for parasites.

[Radical]

[Quote]
[quote = svp67] [quote = Svarog] But my opinion is that many parties are not needed, only one with a socialist ideology is needed. [/ quote]
No, there must be BALANCE in everything. And having a "left" party, you must have, just as "right" otherwise there will be no order. end, and opponents demand that the city surrender? Following your logic, is this how it should look?

[babylon]

A lot of partisanship on the one hand is not bad, but it should be systemic and not consist of parties of provocateurs and traitors who are ready to sell everything and everything.

[Nikolai Korovin]

Having forgotten both the classes and the parties, they are on duty. His eyes are bonaparte, and the color of a protective jacket.

[EvilLion]

Russian citizens do not need parties, but adequate power. The party system is only an instrument for achieving this goal, which in itself is neither good nor bad. If there is a monopoly of one party, then a split will simply occur in it, as it was in the USSR. Since there are always those who think otherwise. On the other hand, Russia has not yet developed a political culture that allows it to have real opposition, capable of taking power if necessary, rather than clowns like Navalny. It all depends on the personality of the president. Therefore, I do not expect anything good from Putin’s departure, the probability is high that a new Khrushchev will come.

[Private89]

Parties in a bourgeois country such as ours are a game of thimbles with the people. Now no one represents the interests of the people, the current official “opposition” is happy with everything. While there is no one who says "There is such a party!" nor the party itself, this place is vacant.

[iouris]

There are no universal recipes. Do you want "checkers" or "go"? Decide.

[ZAV69]

If it turns out to be done so that there would be no parties living on the means of "partners" and controlled by them, why not.

[dauria]

And if there are several such forces that have real and competitive programs, perhaps we will survive a multi-party system.

This is not enough, dear author. I like your articles - calmly, competently, without slogans ....
But here you are wrong. A system of two or more breeding structures competing for the same resources not stable... Even with an equal start, even absolutely equal in their qualities. It inevitably slides into the dominance of one structure, with the miserable residual existence of another. A tiny push and an advantage are enough - an avalanche occurs, a "trigger effect". This is reality, not my fantasies. He is known to everyone from biophysicists, biologists and even sociologists to techies ..
But the push throwing the trigger to the other side should be huge compared to the first. It is necessary not just an advantage, but a huge one.
That is why in biology one kind of crowds out another from the food chain, one religion crowds out others within the country, Microsoft with the first MS-DOS crowded out the rest of the OSes ... At first, you don't have to be the best, just be the first.
Conclusion - someone "from above" must keep the system in balance. Religions, firms, parties. Not even from destruction by a competitor, but from a simple extinction due to the fact that the competitor has devoured all the resources.
And what is this power? Which "understands" that it is necessary to keep Muslims with priests, Intel and AMD, and Lockheed with Boeing, and Democrats and Republicans by the collar.

[iouris]

Quote: dauria

A system of two or more breeding structures competing for the same resources is not stable.

Power cannot consist of more than one structure. This design is designed either in terms of autonomous stability, or in the expectation that it is a resource for the stability of someone external.

[Basarev]

In fact, there can be no multiparty system in principle. Because any ideas, any political forces can be reduced to right and left. Everything else is just idle talk to lull vigilance. Therefore, we need two parties fighting each other - the right and the left, with a hierarchy of radicalism - so that reconciliation is impossible in principle.

[evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru]

On the territory of Russia there is no real state of the Russian （and other indigenous ...） people.
,, Capitalist Russia ,, （RK）, which ,, rules, 30 years on the territory of our country - ,, educational ,, state, state-fake, quasi-state.
It is more likely a d m and n and with a r and c, I, a raw materials appendage, of the West. Or - Department ,, Rusland ,, some TNC ,, Global Inteteyment ,,.
The Russian state in a rich and self-sufficient Russia cannot taunt the population by poverty, cannot stupidly and brazenly export the money earned in Russia to other countries, including NATO countries. Year after year, it cannot create problems for the population of Russia - either by raising fuel prices, then by housing and utility services tariffs, or by raising the retirement age. This ,, state ,, is a headache for the Russians. ,, State ,, RK - ,, one big problem ,,.
About 300 years ago, the prophet Abel, "politically incorrect," called this to be with the t and to, and ,, the Yid yoke ,,. We look at the surnames （and deeds） of our ,, oligarchs ,, and ,, effective managers, and we are convinced of the words of the prophet. Or are we not convinced?
Why can a root Rusak, some Sidorov Vasily from the city of Vyatka, not be able to head the small state of Israel, and some German Jew Mendel Moysh can head the big state of the Republic of Kazakhstan easily? What kind of discrimination ,, global scale? And, most importantly - why is it about native Russians, why is it about Russians?
If the Russians have a state, then, naturally, it should have a TWO-PARTY political system. By the way, there is a foundation. Something like that they could be called - ,, One Country ,,,,, Just State ,,. Only not parties, maybe, but political unions. The ruling software and the opposition. This is a global experience. An effective, proven system for centuries. Nothing is needed. What for?

[Smirnoff]

Our peculiarities of domestic policy are such that everyone is looking at the president.

[IC]

Currently, in the Russian Federation, the one-party system is diluted to disguise the parties with spoilers, which are completely dependent on the government. The deep people have been accustomed to such a system of eme since 1918 and have nothing against it.