History Repeating

[Professor S]

This is NOT GOOD. Reminds me of a series of political events that happened about 70-80 years ago...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/10/01/776994.html&cvqh=itn_putin

[Bond]

I really thought Putin was a good guy when he was first elected in 2000. It's appearing to be not so.

[Angrist]

Kasparov, lol. :D

[Typhoid]

I see nothing wrong with it.

[Professor S]

I see nothing wrong with it.


Shocker

[Typhoid]

The fact he's going to stay somewhat in power and I see nothing wrong with him going from a Presidential seat to a Prime Minister and changing the layout of Russian Democracy has nothing to do with my stance on him, or anything of the sort. He's changing his country. Whether it for the better or the worse is yet to be decided, or even seen.

[Professor S]

The fact he's going to stay somewhat in power and I see nothing wrong with him going from a Presidential seat to a Prime Minister and changing the layout of Russian Democracy has nothing to do with my stance on him, or anything of the sort. He's changing his country. Whether it for the better or the worse is yet to be decided, or even seen.

As Prime Minister he would essentially be President. His power is nearly absolute as it is, to the point that his endorsement for presidency all but guarantees that mans election to the office.

There is a chance that he's moving in a pro-democracy direction, but that hasn't really been proven by his history. Most of his policies in the political arena have been to remove democratic power, not increase it, the biggest example being when he repealed the ability for individual provinces to elect their own governors. Now they are all appointed by HIM.

Now this could be an example of him cracking down on corruption, but it is a tenuous situation at best when you remove corruption with borderline fascism. I'm not saying his intent couldn't be altruitistic, and it wouldn't be the first time that a leader reluctantly took the reigns to save his people (Lord Protector comes to mind), but it is exceedingly rare that the motives are pure. Add to that the number of questioning journalists that have "disappeared" in Russia and the short term period of assassinations via radioactive poisoning, you know, from an ore that only comes from Russia, and you have plenty of reasons not to trust this man. He doesn't quietly kill political enemies, he sends obvious MESSAGES.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We'll have to wait and see if Putin has been corrupted (we know he is insanely vain). I just hope that we hear that he is not, because if he is it might already be too late considering his loyalty to China and Iran.

[Dylflon]

I wonder if Bush is taking notes.

[Professor S]

I wonder if Bush is taking notes.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to use this thread as an opportunity to slam Bush. Thank you for not disappointing me :nya:

[Bond]

Even if Bush could stay in power for more than eight years, I can't see him wanting to.

[Dylflon]

I was wondering how long it would take someone to use this thread as an opportunity to slam Bush. Thank you for not disappointing me :nya:

But it's just so easy.

Honestly though, does anyone out there still respect the guy?



Also, I don't think you can really call my comment a slam.

[Professor S]

But it's just so easy.

Honestly though, does anyone out there still respect the guy?



Also, I don't think you can really call my comment a slam.

For me, that is the uandary that is Bush. I DO respect him, I just don't agree with 75% of his politics. I think he does what he feels is the right thing to do. People want to scream that he's pursuing the Iraq war for fun and profiot, but I don't think even those that say it really believe it because a cursory examionation of the facts show how that theory fails on nearly every level.

I think he really believes that America and its allies installing democracy in the region is the Middle East's last best hope (mthats the one aspect of his presidency I agree with). I think he really believes that providing a legal home for illegal labor helps everyone. I think he really believes that he can cut taxes and still increase spending and it will all work out in the end.

He is not a panderer, or at least far less of one that most politicians, and that I respect.

[manasecret]

To go more general, I can respect people who believe something and can back up their belief with good explanation and facts.

I can not respect people who believe something despite having many facts and explanations fly in the face against that belief. That turns into belief without reason.

Case in point (remember I'm generalizing), my father is a horrible driver. Everyone that has every ridden with him (and I mean everyone) has thought so. He is oblivious to the world and everyone outside of the car when he drives, which is not a good thing when driving.

Yet he still believes that he is a good driver and that everyone else is wrong or out to get him or just harping too much. But when everyone tells you you're a bad driver, at what point do you stop and think -- hey, maybe I am a bad driver, maybe I should change how I drive.

I can't respect people who can't stop and think that, hey, maybe I'm wrong about this thing I believe -- or that thing I believe -- or even this belief that goes to my very soul and I am SURE I am right about. Even the deepest held beliefs should be questioned.

Bush doesn't do that. Or as far as I can tell, for the majority of the time he doesn't do that. I don't have explicit examples. So maybe there are examples of times he has. But my guess is the times he hasn't questioned himself outweigh the times he has.

[Bond]

I've often wondered if any president ever has time to stop and smell the roses?

[Dylflon]

I've often wondered if any president ever has time to stop and smell the roses?

I often find time to think while I do other things.

[Professor S]

Alright, enough off topic shenanigans. Lets concentrate on the real abuser of power, the actual topic of the thread, Vladamir Putin.

[manasecret]

Vladamir who? Oh, right.

Well maybe you could fill us less history-conscious people on which part of history exactly this is repeating. Something to do with a previous Russian guy taking over power, but which one?

[Professor S]

Vladamir who? Oh, right.

Well maybe you could fill us less history-conscious people on which part of history exactly this is repeating. Something to do with a previous Russian guy taking over power, but which one?

Actually, I was thinking more German than Russian. Remember, Hitler was an elected official before becoming dictator.

Think about Hitler's run up into power. He took a people demoralized by the first world war and the bitter international sanctions and manipulated the situation to create a nationalistic frenzy centered on himself as the leader.

The Russian people have still not recovered from communism, and its fall, and have the same sense of demoralization. Putin comes off as a strong leader, even using hegemonic masculinity to curry favor, and slowly begins the process of ventralizing power in himself and his people love him for it because they see him as a force that will create a sense of national pride again.

Is Putin another Hitler? No. There will never be another Hitler. He was the epitome of self-justified evil. But the similarities of how a democracy can turn into an oligarchy or dictatorship should be examined and remembered.

History does tend to repeat itself.

[Typhoid]

Actually, I was thinking more German than Russian. Remember, Hitler was an elected official before becoming dictator.

Think about Hitler's run up into power. He took a people demoralized by the first world war and the bitter international sanctions and manipulated the situation to create a nationalistic frenzy centered on himself as the leader.

Actually Hitler was being an opportunistic power hungry person.

Putin isn't handing a resignation in and cornering a committee to put him as the head so they won't be disbanded. He's just considering making a new system of government in which he plays a vast role. And why wouldn't he? After all it is his idea. Who would think up a new government system in which they play no role at all? You need to keep a part, and have it be major to show you have confidence in your own idea. If you say "Well, I have this new plan. But you guys go ahead and run it" people will be weary from the start because the mind behind it doesn't appear to back it with the vision he may have had.

But at this point everything is heresy. Nobody knows what his intentions actually are. Maybe he just wants a truly United Russia? Comparing him to Hitler seems unfair, even considering who he is.

History is bound to repeat itself. To think every single event that will ever happen is new is just plain silly. Comparing the present day to pre-world war times is odd, because the world isn't nearly the same place it was 60, or 90 years ago.

If Putin starts genocide, segregation, and breaks all ties with the modern world, I'll buy you a coke.

[Dylflon]

If Putin starts genocide, segregation, and breaks all ties with the modern world, I'll buy you a coke.


Quoted for future historical purposes.

[Professor S]

Actually Hitler was being an opportunistic power hungry person.

And Putin isn't?

Putin isn't handing a resignation in and cornering a committee to put him as the head so they won't be disbanded. He's just considering making a new system of government in which he plays a vast role.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto. Its the same damn thing, IMO.

And why wouldn't he? After all it is his idea.

National socialism was Hitler's idea too, that didn't make his power grab the right thing to do.

Who would think up a new government system in which they play no role at all?

He has played his role. The problem is that he doesn't want to retire from power when he said he would. There are plenty of leaders who formed new governments and then let go once their time had passed. Most people wanted George Washington to run for a third term, and he refused. Its called intergrity.

You need to keep a part, and have it be major to show you have confidence in your own idea. If you say "Well, I have this new plan. But you guys go ahead and run it" people will be weary from the start because the mind behind it doesn't appear to back it with the vision he may have had.

No, if he confidence in "his idea", he would let go of power because he'd actually believe that his idea would work without his influence. Thats how a democracy/republic works. And what makes this "his idea"? If removing democratic power form the people was his idea, then he is succeeding, but democracy was in Russia LONG before Putin came to power.

But at this point everything is heresy. Nobody knows what his intentions actually are. Maybe he just wants a truly United Russia? Comparing him to Hitler seems unfair, even considering who he is.

I even said its to be seen what could happen from this, but if history is any indicator, a leader removing the rights of his people has never really led up to a good thing. I even emphasized that Putin is not Hitler, but the run up and abuse of the democratic system to maintain power is reminiscent of those historical events.

History is bound to repeat itself.

Particularly when we ignore it or equivocate.

To think every single event that will ever happen is new is just plain silly. Comparing the present day to pre-world war times is odd, because the world isn't nearly the same place it was 60, or 90 years ago.

Thats a matter of opinion. I think they are starkly similar right now.

If Putin starts genocide, segregation, and breaks all ties with the modern world, I'll buy you a coke.

Once again, I never said that Putin was Hitler. In fact I went out of my way to emphasize it. My comparison was the slow switch from democracy to fascism that is obviously taking place in that country. It is VERY pre-WW2 Germany. The people and events are different, but the mode of operation is very similar.

Like I said, we have to wait and see. But these continuous acts on his part to maintain power and remove it from his people are not a good sign.

[Typhoid]

I stand by what I said.
It's heresy at this point - even what I'm saying, to an extent.
You call it National Socialism, others may call it a good idea to bring Russia together after years of breaking apart and division.

Even - say if Russia becomes a "super bad" communism, or socialist country, that doesn't mean it will be a bad thing. Communism is only bad by Western standards, and culture. War does not always directly corrolate with socialism. Maybe he can pull it off.

[The Germanator]

I stand by what I said.
It's heresy at this point - even what I'm saying, to an extent.
You call it National Socialism, others may call it a good idea to bring Russia together after years of breaking apart and division.

Even - say if Russia becomes a "super bad" communism, or socialist country, that doesn't mean it will be a bad thing. Communism is only bad by Western standards, and culture. War does not always directly corrolate with socialism. Maybe he can pull it off.

Have to disagree...Communism has failed in every format so far...I really can't see it working...It' hasn't for a while, and everyone agrees so.

[Bond]

Communism fails on basic economic principles. It's amazing how anyone could logically think communism can work.

[Typhoid]

Have to disagree...Communism has failed in every format so far...I really can't see it working...It' hasn't for a while, and everyone agrees so.

I never said it's ever succeeded completely.

[Professor S]

I stand by what I said.
It's heresy at this point - even what I'm saying, to an extent.
You call it National Socialism, others may call it a good idea to bring Russia together after years of breaking apart and division.

Even - say if Russia becomes a "super bad" communism, or socialist country, that doesn't mean it will be a bad thing. Communism is only bad by Western standards, and culture. War does not always directly corrolate with socialism. Maybe he can pull it off.

1) I called Putin's government National Socialism? Where? All I stated was that the events are similar between the run up Hitler's power and the run up to Putin's power. The actual power and philosophy (EX. Nazi blood cult) behind it are completely different, the only similarity being the transfer of power form the people to an authority figure.

2) So as long as order is maintained freedom can suffer? Ok, thats your opinion, but that is also the opinion that most fascists have had.

3) I never mentioned communism. Putin is a fascist, not a communist. But as long as we're talking about communism, it has failed every time. Every single time. The worst part is that communism always turns to fascism when it inevitably fails.

[Seth]

cuba would've made it if it wasn't for all the sanctions.

[Professor S]

cuba would've made it if it wasn't for all the sanctions.

Communism in its true form wouldn't be hurt by sanctions, as by definition the the communist state is self-sufficient (according to Marx and Lenin). So if Cuba didn't make it because of sanctions, then it wasn't and isn't a communist nation.

Castro's Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship; fascism with better public relations. That is what all "communist" nations are in practice because for the concept to work people must willingly devalue themselves to the point of being cogs in a massive machine, so in short order the concept fails because for people to care about the state (or anything else) they must care about themselves first before they can care about anything else. This is basic Psychology 101.

So the people stop buying in to the concept, and for the state to exist the government must enforce the ideal through fear instead of the original idea of nationalistic fundamentalism. And so the state degrades from the "fatherland" to the "fearland", where the people risk death to flee the state that will not recognize them as individuals and constantly beats all individuality out of them.

This is what happens when communism is attempted. Marx's great idea, while pure in intention, has lead to the uneeded deaths of tens of millions in Soviet gulags and at the bad end of machine gun towers. Communism hasn't worked yet, not because it hasn't been attempted true to Marxist ideals, but because the concept is fatally flawed from the outset.

If you want to see an excellent satire of Cuba's fall to "communism", watch Woody Allen's movie "Bananas". He nails it on the head.