No. By modernising the ussr I meant decentralisation as well. 

You think people should have no rights in the workplace? In the soviet union
they did, now they don't.

This is the core of the misunderstanding - what's the lesser of the two
evils, political or class oppression? In the ussr there was political
oppression now there is class oppression again.


-----Original Message-----
From: On all aspects of Russia and the FSU [mai
lto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Charles A
Sent: 09 May 2008 02:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Utopianism & pragmatism in assessing Russia's polity

"I think the USSR should have been modernised, not maximalistically
thrown to the bin."

You think the Estonians should still be ruled from Moscow?

-----Original Message-----
From: On all aspects of Russia and the FSU
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alexander Antonyuk
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Utopianism & pragmatism in assessing Russia's polity

I am really sorry to say that, you seem to be an authoritative figure on
Russia (I saw your interview on BBC I think) but your remark about 1917
and
1991 is typical of what I hear from many Westerners. To characterise
such complex event as the Russian revolution with the subsequent
horrendous civil war that lasted for 4 years as a clear warning to
Russians against authoritarianism is a gross simplification. I am a bit
taken aback to hear that from you. Even Ray pointed out today that the
freedoms and education women got were very good. You would prefer
Russian women to still be illiterate servants? Or work from the age of 8
like my grandmother did before the revolution? I know you wouldn't. 

Also, how can you persuade people that the soviet system was an
"unreliable arrangement" if ALL the main macro statistics show a sharp
deterioration for the majority of population? Honestly, did you know
that life expectancy now is 9 years lower than in 1991? It's a stunning
change, comparable to losses in a war.

I call the western attitude to the Soviet Union the greatest historical
fraud of the 20th century. You need a great deal of effort to block the
main information channels and create such one-sided view among the
majority of the westerners, to completely conceal the achievements and
exaggerate the problems. Until this is resolved there can't really be a
dialogue. Andreas, please don't take it personally, I see this
informational bias as a by-product of the cold war. 

As to democracy in modern Russia, I am not such a "maximalist" as your
Russian friends, I would aim for gradual improvements (and I think the
USSR should have been modernised, not maximalistically thrown to the
bin). But I am not surprised about their views. There is a good book by
prof. Vasilenko, "Dialog civilizaciy", where she points out that the
Russian national character has always been very "maximalistskiy" ...
What can do you about it? Try to transform Russians into people with a
different mentality? Or perhaps transform westerners to something closer
to Russian mentality? I think solution is simple: we need to try to
understand each other. 

Best wishes,
Alexander


-----Original Message-----
From: On all aspects of Russia and the FSU
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andreas Umland
Sent: 08 May 2008 20:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Utopianism & pragmatism in assessing Russia's polity

Alexander's remark is typical of what one hears from many Russians: As
there is no real democracy anyway, at least not in the West, why bother
about possible democratic deficiencies in Russia?

The principal issue seems to be here that, in the West, these subjects
are mostly discussed from the point of view of democratic theory whereas
many Russians discuss them, paradoxically, from the point of view of
democratic utopia: As there is no and never was true democracy (and, one
coud add: never will be), there is not that much difference between
Britain and Russia, the US and China, Switzerland and North Korea... 

This is a fascinating combination of democratic maximalism with
political machiavellianism.

The one argument that speaks against such seeming political pragmatism
is that almost all of the world's economically and socially more
successful countries are those that have been or/and are trying to be as
democratic as possible. Granted, the various more or less democratic
countries do that with rather varying success. Still, many Western and
non-Western countries would, at least, seem to be trying. Though Russia
is today trying many things, being more democratic is not among Moscow's
current policy priorities. 

The latter makes many foreigners unhappy and some Westerners, like for
example those worrying about the future of Strasbourg's European Court
for Human Rights, angry.  However, in the end, the most unhappy people
will be not any Western "russophobes", but the Russians themselves. As,
one would think, they should know from the experience of 1917 and 1991,
authoritarian polities constitute unreliable arrangements for organizing
modern nations.
These regimes, sooner or later, collapse. And their nations have to pay
the bill.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date:
07/05/2008
17:23
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date:
07/05/2008
17:23
 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date: 07/05/2008
17:23
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date: 07/05/2008
17:23