A Russian commentator here on Aussie TV was saying the other week - Russian opinion polls have a very high approval for Putin. But in Russia, not approving of Putin has enormous risks, as polls are not anonymous, and expressing a negative opinion has consequences. And woe betide unto you, if you were trying to do the equivalent of what The Washington Post or CNN does in respect to Trump.

That said, The Economist says that Putin is not a terrible economic manager. They give him some marks for overall economic management and political prudence. Sometimes I reflect that of all the possible Russian Presidents (or PM? I forget which) the world could have had, Putin is probably not the absolute worst. But he could have your mother killed while you were having coffee with him, without batting an eyelid, and without your ever knowing what had happened.

This might be a topic worthy of another thread; but, why isn't Russia more developed as a nation, and will it ever be for the matter? — Question

For a country to develop at a very quick rate it must encourage entrepreneurship, and let the economy run freely and openly. Russia isn't doing this. There's a few people who have been allowed to own a lot of resources, but small businesses have a hard time (especially small producers). The bureaucracy is too much.

Furthermore, a quickly developing economy requires deregulation and decentralisation. The head of state can no longer dictate everything - he must allow others - economic leaders - to dictate the terms. Thus power needs to be spread through a network, and people cannot be kept under control anymore.

do you think Putin is doing a good job at restoring the power and might of the former Soviet Union? Why or why not? — Question

Yes, absolutely. He is centralising power, removing opposition, and directing the country towards and clear and unified goal. He is also building a very strong military, because ultimately, what decides the course of things in this world is brute force. Not money. Not influence. Not anything else. Force always has the last say. The West is failing to realise this.

He is also influencing the rest of the world, through different actions, down paths that in the long term are more profitable to Russia. Weakening the EU is one such action.

But in Russia, not approving of Putin has enormous risks — Wayfarer

False. Disapproving of Putin is not a problem. Protests, etc. are another matter though.

Russian opinion polls have a very high approval for Putin — Wayfarer

Yes, because Putin is making Russia strong again. The Russian people are sick and tired of always being seconds or thirds.

It looks to me like he's made Russia have the worst of both worlds.

With the Soviet Union, once Stalin had died and his after-effects had dissipated, Soviet citizens had a reasonable standard of leaving, but no political freedom. Almost everybody had a job and could afford a modest standard of living. For a while after the Soviet Union dissolved, there was political freedom, but a deteriorating standard of living - high unemployment, probably increasing homeless and so on.

Now, under Putin, they have no political freedom, and high unemployment and homelessness. It looks to me like, on the whole they were better off under either the Soviets or Yeltsin.

Disapproving of Putin is not a problem. — Agustino

Thank you comrade. I must commend your always unswerving faithfulness and loyalty to the great cause. You are indeed an exemplar to all the progressive and scientific people of this uncertain world.

Now, under Putin, they have no political freedom, and high unemployment and homelessness. It looks to me like, on the whole they were better off under either the Soviets or Yeltsin. — andrewk

This is not true. In Communist times you were given a job, and you had to work it, whether you liked it or not. You had no freedom to move in society. This isn't the case today. You have a lot more freedom. Freedom of religious expression, etc. The problem is that many people still expect the state to give them a job. They expect to be given things. Opportunities, etc. It's a mindset problem. People want to be given. They can't take for themselves. They can't create their own jobs, etc.

Thank you comrade. I must commend your always unswerving faithfulness and loyalty to the great cause. You are indeed an exemplar to all the progressive and scientific people of this uncertain world. — Wayfarer

You should read my full reply, not quote only a small segment of it.

deleted

Protests, etc. are another matter though. — Agustino

No, this is the part you didn't quote.

I detect a pattern. — Wayfarer

Yes, I prefer strong leaders to weak leaders. Do you expect me to prefer Crooked? Crooked can't even get her own life straight, much less a country.

This is not true. In Communist times you were given a job, and you had to work it, whether you liked it or not. You had no freedom to move in society. This isn't the case today. You have a lot more freedom. — Agustino

It looks like you failed to notice the word 'political' before the word 'freedom'.

Wish we had some Russian members who could post what they think around here.

Would be nice to get a change in POV's about various issues.

But he could have your mother killed while you were having coffee with him, without batting an eyelid, and without your ever knowing what had happened. — Wayfarer

Yeah, these are the typical ad hom attacks mounted against Russian or post-Soviet leaders. I don't think they really mean anything, given how hypocritical a person from the US would seem to say such things. Well, at least that's what a supporter of Putin would say more-or-less.

That said, The Economist says that Putin is not a terrible economic manager. They give him some marks for overall economic management and political prudence. — Wayfarer

I have a subscription to The Economist; but, haven't read their issue on Putinism (I think that's actually a word in the dictionary last I checked). I guess, he didn't score as high due to not being neo-liberal enough according to The Economist's standards.

Personally, I think Russian's are grateful first and foremost for stability, especially after the Perestroika and fall of the Soviet Union. Where Putin has failed, according to Western leaders, is in not liberalizing the market enough, and well, hoarding positions of power to a handful of elite.

Force always has the last say. The West is failing to realise this. — Agustino

How dark.

How do you explain the contradiction in your views for a country to develop rapidly, and the rather contradiction you see, as you described it, in terms of how Russia has been developing under Putin?

Also, in regards to the above quote, you seem to describe that force matters in the end; but, fail to point at the US as the supreme user of force in mitigating conflicts in the past. How come?

Now, under Putin, they have no political freedom, and high unemployment and homelessness. It looks to me like, on the whole they were better off under either the Soviets or Yeltsin. — andrewk

I think we don't have to resort to judgments like those at the end of your comment. For the most part, given Russia's fat bottom pyramid demographics, people are happy with Putin's conservative leadership with the country. I think the only complaint (being on the whole, a positive thing) is that the country hasn't grown economically fast enough.

But, then again, China is in my view a country that can provide an example that central economic planning can be effective in concert with a free market. Perhaps, Putin would agree or looks favorably to what China has achieved in terms of economic development. The remaining question would be why hasn't Russia borrowed what homework China has done in regards as to why the Soviet Union collapsed.

For a country to develop at a very quick rate it must encourage entrepreneurship, and let the economy run freely and openly. Russia isn't doing this. There's a few people who have been allowed to own a lot of resources, but small businesses have a hard time (especially small producers). — Agustino

I have heard people say this about Russia a lot. How is South Korea, for instance, so economically successful? What is so different about China?

It looks like you failed to notice the word 'political' before the word 'freedom'. — andrewk

Who needs that? Politics is a bloody arena, where things are taken by force, whether that force is controlling the masses (Ghandi) or controlling the armies (Hitler) or otherwise. You have political freedom to say and think you disagree with policies and people. Someone in Russia can say they think what Putin is doing isn't good policy for Russia. You don't have political freedom to protest (if you do, then you're obviously joining in the political arena as a political player), form political parties, etc. And it doesn't seem all that unnatural that that is so. As I said, politics is a battlefield - there are consequences for actions.

How do you explain the contradiction in your views for a country to develop rapidly, and the rather contradiction you see, as you described it, in terms of how Russia has been developing under Putin? — Question

The development of a country's economy isn't the most important factor to a country's success. Its influence, and strategic positioning with regards to the future and its competitors - that's what matters the most. Economy is relevant only to produce sufficient resources.

For regular people though - not for countries - economy probably is a much more important factor. Personally for example I support free-market based economic systems - not exactly like US, but not exactly like Russia either. The idea is to have free markets that are dominated by entrepreneurship, not by bankers, speculators, or government bureaucrats and oligarchs.

Also, in regards to the above quote, you seem to describe that force matters in the end; but, fail to point at the US as the supreme user of force in mitigating conflicts in the past. How come? — Question

And that's what made the US great in the first place. It wasn't the "free market", etc. That's all BS. The US was great because it intervened at the very end in two global conflicts (WWI and WWII) and managed to set the terms after both conflicts with everyone. It got ahold of resources, it got ahold of influence, and it loaned reparation money (Marshal Plan for ex.) to most of Europe. It's hard not to be great when you set the terms.

I have heard people say this about Russia a lot. How is South Korea, for instance, so economically successful? What is so different about China? — mcdoodle

Simple. SK or China don't have centralised control. Sure, China is a dictatorship, but there is no one supreme leader of China. China is ruled by a group of strategists which decide what is best, not by a single person. Therefore power is more distributed, and when power is more distributed, it's possible to generate much faster economic growth. Whereas when you have one leader centralising control, he cannot risk things escaping out of control because (for example) someone is getting too rich. So everyone must be controlled.

China found the optimum point between control and freedom. I think their system is the most advanced to date, and China is likely to rule the future - as it has ruled for most of history actually. China has had some of the best strategic minds.

So, I've been one of those people who always thought that Russia is one of the few countries that bona fide ought to be the richest. It has resources in abundance and a decent population. T — Question

You have to look at the history of Russia / USSR / Russia-again.

What was it about centuries of Tzarist autocracy that would have encouraged a highly innovative enterprising economy? What was it about the Revolution of 1917 that would have unleashed the eager forces of uninhibited production? What was it about WWI and WWII that might have made a difference? What was it about Joseph Stalin that would have encouraged paradigm-busting social developments (hint: a bullet in the head)?

True, Russia / USSR / Russia-again had and has resources and decent people but they haven't been fortunate in their rulers who at times were lavishly indecent -- appalling monsters in some cases.

Force always has the last say. The West is failing to realise this. — Agustino

Or, maybe the West is trying to be a little more civilized than they have been in the past. The West has had plenty of practice in the exercise of force.

Or, maybe the West is trying to be a little more civilized than they have been in the past. The West has had plenty of practice in the exercise of force. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the problem with this approach is that the enemies of the West don't play by these rules. Therefore the West is at a disadvantage.

I am struggling to recall the 'bloody arena' in which the Soviet Union fell.

I am struggling to recall the 'bloody arena' in which the Soviet Union fell. — mcdoodle

The Soviet Union never fell. They relinquished some territories temporarily and opened themselves to foreign investment and trade in order to modernise themselves and come back stronger than ever before. There was nothing to gain except economic stagnation by remaining stuck with Communism, and blocked from the rest of the world. But you think the ex Soviet bloc isn't still there? Ukraine is really part of Russia, so is Estonia, etc. They are absolutely controlled, to this day.

The Soviet Union never lost power. Russia has always remained one of the top 5 global powers, even when the Soviet Union fell apart.

My wife spent a year in Russia in 1992-3. I can assure you, the Soviet Union had fallen. I have lately spent some time in Estonia. It is not really part of Russia. You are misusing words as pseudo-descriptions to back up your ideological bluster about politics being a bloody arena where Real Men slug it out.

In what sense it had fallen? In the sense that there were severe shortages of food, social and economic unrest, etc.? Sure. But it was still a very strong country militarily. America or China couldn't go and conquer them - otherwise they probably would have done it.

"In what sense has it fallen?" he asks. #()%*&#()@%*&!

1. The Communist Party and government structure existing in the USSR ended. (Not saying the communist party ended, just that it's structural overlap with the government ended.)

2. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan are not longer part of the successor state, Kaputistan.

3. There were extremely significant changes in economic policy by the successor states (Russia, et al.

4. The rest of the world recognized that the USSR had ended. Russia and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan are now (more or less) all independent national states.

What would a reconstituted Communist Party be like? I would think that for many people in Russia, going back to the Communist party would be on par with a dog returning to its vomit. I doubt that the 14 ex-USSR states would willingly become part of a renewed USSR type arrangement. (Of course, they don't have to be given a choice, but I don't know if the Russians have the stomach to force them.)

I can't quite imagine what a reborn Communist Party would be like. It would probably be very odd.

a reborn Communist Party — Bitter Crank

Obviously I share your reaction to Agustino's question, but just to add, although the Soviet Communist party was banned by Yeltsin in 1991, since 1993 there has been a Communist Party in Russia with half a million members and a modest but significant share of the vote, 17% in the 2012 presidential election.

Weirdly, there are Christian Communists in Russia.

Weirdly, there are Christian Communists in Russia. — Mongrel

It seems Jesus was the world's first Communist. Report on al-jazeera

Elsewhere there has always been a movement of Christian Socialists, though, taking different forms in different countries.

I agree that Christianity has an affinity for socialism. Maybe that explains it.