Is an alternative to democracy possible in Russia


Real, and not declared, sovereignty at the present time is not such a common thing. There are very few countries in the world that are able to make independent decisions without relying on the position of a stronger ally or without playing on the contradictions of two or more powers that have real sovereignty. And Russia, with all its external and internal problems, is undoubtedly one of the states that enjoy the right to conduct an independent policies.


Of course, this fact does not at all please our "partners", primarily the Western ones, since it prevents them from dictating their will to the rest of the world. After all, if our country did not possess sovereignty, then, for example, we would not see the revival of China as one of the leading foreign policy players. Because the United States would not have to spend so many resources on containing Russia, and they would put all their efforts into moderate the appetites of the Celestial Empire, which poses an increasing threat to their world hegemony.

But this is not the only point and not so much. And the fact that, as you know, our country is perceived by the West as an existential threat simply by the fact of its existence. We are too different from the same Europe throughout its history - either pre-Petrine, imperial, or Soviet. In general, for them we are carriers of alien values.

And, of course, we cannot discount the fact that some people would very much like to have at their disposal those natural resources that are under the control of Russia. Madeleine Albright also said in this regard that it is economically expedient to leave about 15 million people to live in the territory from Smolensk to Vladivostok. Does Hitler's plan "Ost" remind anyone?

Therefore, attempts to deprive us of our sovereignty are being made and will continue to be made. Not a single person in his right mind and sober memory would think that after the failure of the "white tape" movement in the West, everyone surrendered. After all, the roots of the problems in the countries-allies of Russia in the CSTO, as ordered by the emerging this year, grow from the same place. The unrest in Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, the war in Karabakh did not arise out of nowhere. The goal pursued by those behind these events is very simple. They need to create problems for our country, draw them into conflicts that are disadvantageous to us, weaken them, then deprive them of foreign policy independence and, as a super task, play out the Yugoslav scenario. Moreover, our "partners" do not even hide this.

Enough has been written and said about all this, but there is one more tool with which it is possible, if not to deprive the country of its sovereignty, then at least to limit it. Which our "partners" are trying to use now, and will certainly continue to use it in the future. This tool, oddly enough, is democracy, or to be precise, democracy in its Western reading. What exactly are we talking about? Let's explain now.

For a long time, both us and the rest of the world have been convinced that the political system of European countries and the United States is almost the only way to progress. And it will not work at all to trample the path to true freedom in another way. And if at first the majority of people really believed in this, then over time, looking at what is happening in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and in Russia, belief in "true democracy" increasingly gave way to a kind of democratic atheism.

And the presidential elections in America in 2016, and especially in 2020, have become further evidence that they are not particularly interested in freedom or human rights overseas. And this has always been the case, at least since the time when the United States became one of the world's main centers of power. Everything is still decided by the elites. But then a reasonable question arises - why do we need democracy at all?

We would venture to suggest that only in order to create the illusion of participation in political life among the masses and in a visible way to legitimize their power. Since for managing the masses, there have long been worked out by many years, if not centuries of practice Technology... And those who have sufficient financial resources for this will always be able to impose the necessary way of thinking and behavior on the bulk of the population. And those who try to appeal to common sense can be turned into marginalized with the help of the "free press".

The collective West works in the same way not only on its own territory, but throughout the world. And numerous NGOs, educational programs, mass culture are tools for shaping public opinion. And when there are enough people with a mentality formed in this way to build a smaller copy of a western country on the site of this or that country, it is the institutions of democracy that contribute to this. When it fails to achieve the goal in this way, an attempt is made to arrange another "color revolution".

The architects of this new world order are by no means the Masons or the notorious "world government", but the heads of the largest transnational corporations, who do not even think to hide their intentions. One has only to read or watch on YouTube the public speeches of the same Gates, Bloomberg, Rockefellers, etc. They will never give up their goals, and their potential should not be underestimated, but also unnecessarily exaggerate and shout "Help!" it does not follow.

The fact is that these gentlemen, despite all their financial and administrative capabilities, are far from omnipotent. All people make mistakes, but those whose aspirations are dictated exclusively by ambitions of a cosmic scale, sometimes make mistakes more often than others.

But back to democracy, and note that it was a reaction to feudalism, which took into account only the interests of the nobility. By the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, the bourgeoisie had accumulated enough resources to influence the policies of their states, but was deprived of such an opportunity. And it is in this that one should look for the reasons for the English, French, and partly Russian revolutions. Is it any wonder that the wealthiest bourgeoisie of the XX-XXI centuries also use such a familiar tool in this environment as democracy as an effective way to advance their interests in the first place? Therefore, a society that does not want to become a plaything in the hands of the "rulers of this age" must reduce the possibility of the coalescence of power and private interests to a statistical error.

In Russia, after Putin came to power, serious steps have already been taken in this direction, for example, removing the most insolent oligarchs like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky from power. But this process is still far from completion. How far is it even to the final rejection of the piety experienced by our elite for the social structure of Western countries, which it is ready to blindly imitate. And therefore, if the current president's internal political course after his departure from power not only remains unchanged, but also begins to be implemented with greater energy, we can safely say that there is no need to worry about the future of our country.

“Okay, the author is trying to prove that democracy is bad, but what is the alternative?” - the reader will rightly ask. There is an alternative, and it is based on two historically verified principles with the help of which our country was formed: a strong government plus a built-in feedback with the people. But at the same time, it is worth remembering that such a system cannot be built without the most important thing - without devotion to one's country and the feeling of the state as one of the main personal values. It is no coincidence that in Russia they have long been seen in a strong tsar as an intercessor - from the arbitrariness of the "boyars", from the raids of predatory neighbors and from much more.
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Eskimo Offline Eskimo
    Eskimo (Gera) 26 November 2020 08: 36
    -3
    Dear author, Artyom Karagodin, There is NOT an alternative to democracy ... unless a sovereignty is in a state of emergency ...
    1. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
      Afinogen (Afinogen) 26 November 2020 08: 47
      +1
      We are sick of your "crap" for a long time yes Take it and never show it again. Personally, I want to go back to the USSR.

      1. Eskimo Offline Eskimo
        Eskimo (Gera) 27 November 2020 14: 18
        0
        a long time? what do you mean stalinist genious?
        1. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
          Afinogen (Afinogen) 27 November 2020 17: 15
          0
          A long time ago, since you bought the traitor Gorbachev in the West. Who secretly opened the gates of the fortress called the USSR under the cover of night and let the Democrats in. I did not live under comrade Stalin, but under Brezhnev life was beautiful, I don't need another one.
    2. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 26 November 2020 22: 35
      +4
      Let me give you a classic example. While Ancient Rome, democratic in its structure, was a regional power, small in volume, where kindred peoples lived, everything was pretty good. But once it developed into a multinational empire, democracy began to stall, spawning bloody civil wars.

      Caesar found a way out, but too quickly went to the goal, running into the knives of Brutus and his comrades. His adopted son Octavian Augustus continued the same course, but more gently. And when, under the Antonines, the Pax Romana reached its heyday, it was already a fully formed autocracy, successfully coping with all internal and external tasks for a century.

      Well, democracy is not suitable for such complex powers as Russia. And strong personal power does not always mean tyranny.
    3. Jozhik_2 Offline Jozhik_2
      Jozhik_2 (Jozhik) 27 November 2020 00: 23
      0
      You cannot have an alternative to what does not exist and, in principle, cannot exist. Just do not tell stories about American, European and other "democracies".
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 26 November 2020 09: 26
    +1
    Where have you seen democracy ???
    Well, Putin and Peskov called themselves democrats and liberals 5 times.

    In fact, no democracy. Clanavaya plutocracy for 30 years.
    Whatever you name the well-known surnames and klikuhi - they, all of them, are the same for 30 years already ..
    1. bonifacius Offline bonifacius
      bonifacius (Alex) 26 November 2020 21: 19
      +1
      Where do I see democracy? Well, the first thing that comes along is Ukraine. Well, of course, Ukraine is Europe. Also Kyrgyzstan, and, perhaps, all of Eastern Europe with Georgia to boot.
      1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
        ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 26 November 2020 22: 23
        +1
        Subtle comparison))
        1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
          Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 27 November 2020 09: 02
          0
          Ha. Where is that?
          In the media, the same names from the clans: Poroshenko, Kolomniyets, SBU, polite people, etc.
  3. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 26 November 2020 09: 52
    +4
    Madeleine Albright said in this regard that it is economically expedient to leave about 15 million people to live in the territory from Smolensk to Vladivostok. Does Hitler's plan "Ost" remind anyone?

    - This Madeleine Albright was saved by the Yugoslavs from being killed by the Nazis during World War II. She "gratefully" repaid them by organizing the bombing of Yugoslavia. These are the Democrats who rule in the States.
  4. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 26 November 2020 10: 49
    +3
    1. Independence is determined by the poem of A.S. Pushkin - “I will buy everything, said gold, I will take everything, said metal”.

    2. A threat to the national interests of the United States is represented by any state or other entity in one way or another encroaching on the interests of the United States.

    3. Public consciousness is shaped by the environment and property relations.

    4. Development goes from simple to complex and a state at a higher level of development, one way or another, dictates its conditions to the states below.

    5. Democracy is democracy, which, in principle, cannot exist in any class society, where democracy is only a form of rule by the ruling class. As Karl Marx said, once in the “five-year plan” the population is given the right to choose which of the representatives of the ruling class will represent and suppress the people in the representative bodies of power.

    6. Who is the architect of the modern world order can be judged by the report of the international organization Oxfam that 1% of the population owns 99% of all the wealth and the statement by UN Secretary General Anton Guterres at a lecture in memory of Nelson Mandela where he said that the 26 richest people own as much wealth as half of the population planets.

    7. Putin's departure from the presidency will mark a gradual departure from the control and subordination of large Russian capitalists to the interests of the state to their struggle for control over the state with all the ensuing consequences.
  5. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 26 November 2020 10: 56
    +2
    Democracy is the implementation and enforcement of laws! We had more democracy in the 90s than now. Now, whoever has more money is right. Every year Putin receives 2-4 million complaints live! The author did not explain what these serious steps are? Well, there is no Berezovsky with Khodorkovsky, so what? The number of $ -mln has grown almost 14 times (from 8 in 2000 to 110 in 2019) Putin himself has personally violated the Constitution more than once. Now imagine that instead of Putin, one of the patriots will win the elections, not necessarily Zyuganov, but with the same views? What will happen to Gazprom, Rosneft, etc.? There are almost all foreigners on the board of directors! Yes, Putin is needed to plunder Russia and lead the people to extinction. In true democracy, Putin would already be retired, and that's the best thing !!
  6. Lyuba1965_01 Offline Lyuba1965_01
    Lyuba1965_01 (Love) 26 November 2020 11: 00
    +2
    There is no democracy as such anywhere in the world, there is only an illusion of it created by skilled polytechnologists.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 26 November 2020 15: 40
    -2
    Real, and not declared, sovereignty at the present time is not such a common thing.

    Undoubtedly, US sovereignty is no longer what it was 40 years ago.
    Well, the Russian Federation in this regard cannot be compared with the USSR.

    After all, if our country did not have sovereignty, then, for example, we would not see the revival of China as one of the leading foreign policy players.

    What the author wanted to say is not entirely clear. If it were not for "Western" investments and "Western" technologies (primarily the United States), the Chinese would still be chasing sparrows.

    And the fact that, as you know, our country is perceived by the West as an existential threat simply by the fact of its existence.

    The story suggests that these are the author's fantasies.

    Madeleine Albright also said in this regard that it is economically expedient to leave about 15 million people to live in the territory from Smolensk to Vladivostok.

    The author probably does not know, but lying is not good. Albright didn't say that.

    And the presidential elections in America in 2016, and especially in 2020, have become further evidence that they are not particularly interested in freedom or human rights overseas. And this has always been the case, at least since the time when the United States became one of the world's main centers of power. Everything is still decided by the elites. But then a reasonable question arises - why do we need democracy at all?

    Trump is an anti-elite candidate and 16 elections, Brexit and Macron's elections have clearly shown that the desire of the elites is not enough.

    Why do we need democracy at all?
    We would venture to suggest that only in order to create the illusion of participation in political life among the masses and in a visible way to legitimize their power.

    Well, yes, elections are the formal consent of the governed to be governed by specific people (legitimacy). What surprises the author?

    And those who have sufficient financial resources for this will always be able to impose the necessary way of thinking and behavior on the bulk of the population. And those who try to appeal to common sense can be turned into marginalized with the help of the "free press".

    The author thinks very badly about the mental abilities of people.

    But back to democracy, and note that it was a reaction to feudalism, which took into account only the interests of the nobility.

    Judging by the elusive signs, the author does not understand anything in this matter. Feudalism took into account only the interests of the nobility? Are you seriously?

    There is an alternative, and it is based on two historically verified principles with the help of which our country was formed: a strong government plus a built-in feedback from the people.

    Directly historically verified? Elections are feedback. And "autocracy, orthodoxy, nationality" instilled in RI by 1917. Want to repeat?

    feeling the state as one of the main personal values

    The author is probably not in the know again, but here he expounds the idea of ​​fascism.

    PS The author was unable to clearly formulate an alternative to democracy, probably he himself does not know this alternative.
    PSS Reverse cargo cult author

    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 26 November 2020 18: 24
      +2
      Oleg, will you ever learn not to hang labels? Sorry, but this is a sign of blinkered thinking. The speaker from the video you cited, apparently, and you along with her, could also be written as adherents of the sectarian way of thinking, who believe in free elections in some United States.

      I will not do this, because I do not want to judge by a few phrases about a person's views and be sure to enroll him in some camp. So you are not a sectarian. Just talk like an ignoramus and a visionary. Precisely "say how", and not so. I am sure that in real life you are smarter than in your comments.

      And in the last paragraph I didn’t say a word and didn’t even hint at Uvarov’s ideological formula. I just gave an example of one of the really existing political traditions in Russia. Why now people with nostalgia remember the times of the USSR or Stalin, often idealizing both? I understand that you will most likely find how to get out, but think honestly, not trying to get into a pose, as you like it.

      And again about the labels. Is it only in fascist states that people understand the state as a personal value? In Ancient Greece or Pax Romana, what, it was not? And ask any modern Frenchman what the Republic means to him? Or for a Chinese, what place in his life does service to his country, that is, the state as well, take? This is all fascists too ??? Honestly, if you set yourself the goal of surprising someone, you succeeded in 5+. At least, you greatly surprised me.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 November 2020 01: 12
        -1
        Quote: ASK.21.07
        Oleg, will you ever learn not to hang labels?

        If I offended you, I'm sorry, I didn't want to. I just pointed out some shortcomings (in my humble opinion) in your article. But you do not believe that the "plane" is not made of twigs and clay, and even more so it flies.

        Quote: ASK.21.07
        The speaker from the video you cited, apparently, and you along with her, could also be written as adherents of the sectarian way of thinking, who believe in free elections in some United States.

        I don’t know about Ekaterina Shulman (by the way, I recommend, almost the only real political scientist in Russia in the public space), you can attribute me to supporters of democracy. You just need to get away from binary, if you take a certain "City on a Hill" a reference democratic state for 100%, then, conditionally, Norway and Iceland correspond to the ideal by 95%, the USA by 75%, Ukraine by 50%, the Russian Federation by 30%, and North Korea by 5% (there are probably some voting there too).
        But the most important trend is that if 100 years ago, 95% of the world's population lived under the rule of authoritarian regimes of various types, then 50 years ago already 50%, and now 35% (I suspect that most of them are Chinese), the world is being democratized.

        Quote: ASK.21.07
        Just talk like an ignoramus and a visionary.

        In the context of the quality of this article, as they say: "whose cow would moo"
        Something we get personal, it's bad.

        Quote: ASK.21.07
        And in the last paragraph I didn’t say a word and didn’t even hint at Uvarov’s ideological formula. I just gave an example of one of the really existing political traditions in Russia.

        Honestly, then I did not understand what time you are talking about. This is about how long can you say "strong power plus built feedback with the people"? Something nothing comes to mind. And you must admit that "strong power" looks like "autocracy", and "feedback from the people" can be pulled on "nationality".

        Quote: ASK.21.07
        Why now people with nostalgia remember the times of the USSR or Stalin, often idealizing both?

        Can you give your opinion first? I explain this from the point of view of psychology.

        Quote: ASK.21.07
        Is it only in fascist states that people understand the state as a personal value?

        Have you read Mussolini's "doctrine of fascism"? There is a point “7. Anti-individualism and freedom ”, do not consider it a work, read it. In my opinion, very much in common with your

        feeling the state as one of the main personal values

        PS So, in your opinion, what is the alternative to democracy? It is not clear from your article.
  9. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
    ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 26 November 2020 22: 37
    +1
    Quote: ASK.21.07
    The author probably does not know, but lying is not good. Albright didn't say that.

    Be careful with the word "lie". However, you are right that Thatcher said these words.
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 26 November 2020 23: 57
      -1
      Quote: ASK.21.07
      However, you are right that Thatcher said these words.

      Well, you see, it means that these words belong to Albright's lie.
      PS That something like that said Thatcher is also a lie (in your case, probably a delusion). They were attributed to the iron lady Andrey Parshev in his book "Why Russia is not America"

      Until a certain moment, until no one seriously expected that we would join
      into the "world of capital", it was just interesting. But in the late 80s I heard
      just one phrase, which, perhaps, led to the revolution of my ideas
      about the world around. Then I was studying English, and one day I
      caught in the sound recording some public speech of M. Thatcher on the external
      politics. I respected and respect this political figure, especially for her
      English language. She speaks clearly, with an Oxford accent, simple,
      in understandable language, this is not some Bush, with a mouth as if full
      peanuts. So speaking about the prospects of the USSR, she said approximately
      the following, without explaining it in any way:
      "On the territory of the USSR, it is economically justified to live 15 million
      person. "I once again played the record, maybe at least" fifty "
      ("fifty"?). No, exactly "fiftiin" - "fifteen", I heard right.

      Besides Andrey Parshev nobody heard this record. And the fact that Maria Zakharova refers to this fake does not make it a fact, but speaks only of the competence of the press secretary of our Foreign Ministry.
      1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
        ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 27 November 2020 00: 14
        +2
        If you compare your competence and the competence of Maria Zakharova, then for some reason there is no comparison in your favor. Don't know why this is? This time.

        Secondly, even if Thatcher didn’t say it, I don’t think it’s important. Many Western politicians have spoken about the fact that Russia unjustly possesses enormous resources. But thanks for the remark.

        I am waiting for an apology for the accusations of lying. It's about an error. Or is rudeness in the order of things for you? The main thing is that the statements look "witty"?
        1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 November 2020 17: 06
          -1
          Quote: ASK.21.07
          If you compare your competence and the competence of Maria Zakharova, then for some reason there is no comparison in your favor. Don't know why this is? This time.

          Why compare my competence and that of Maria Zakharova? I don't seem to be applying for the position of press secretary of the Russian Foreign Ministry. And, again, in my humble opinion, the position of Maria Zakharova obliges at least to check the quotes to which she refers, if her work includes speaking on behalf of the Russian Federation.

          Quote: ASK.21.07
          Secondly, even if Thatcher didn’t say it, I don’t think it’s important. Many Western politicians have spoken about the fact that Russia unjustly possesses enormous resources. But thanks for the remark.

          You see, you cannot cite more than one similar statement (in the sense of a real one), but it is not important for you, you just want to believe in it, and only therefore it is a fact for you.

          In fact, you confused everything, Albright is credited with different words

          Russia's sole possession of Siberia is "unfair" and Siberia should be brought under international control.

          Here the story is even funnier. For the first time this was attributed to her in the Russian newspaper

          https://rg.ru/2006/12/22/gosbezopasnostj-podsoznanie.html

          The article is called "Security officers scanned Madeleine Albright's thoughts"

          First, in Madame Albright's thoughts, we discovered a pathological hatred of the Slavs. She was also outraged by the fact that Russia possesses the world's largest reserves of minerals. In her opinion, in the future, Russian reserves should be managed not by one country, but by all of humanity under the supervision of, of course, the United States. And she saw the war in Kosovo only as the first step towards establishing control over Russia.

          But the funny thing is that Putin himself referred to this nonsense (he also seems to want to believe in it), but at the same time he scares, because he again speaks of the competence of his entourage.
          We have sorted out the two most common fakes on this issue. Is there some more? Please enlighten.

          Quote: ASK.21.07
          I am waiting for an apology for the accusations of lying. It's about an error. Or is rudeness in the order of things for you? The main thing is that the statements look "witty"?

          I'm probably too picky about the authors on this forum, I perceive them as journalists (who should know and check what they write about), and it is more correct to perceive them as bloggers.
          I realized that you were mistaken, but for some reason, when you were pointed out to your error, instead of simply admitting your mistake, you brought another "error" about Thatcher. When this "delusion" was dispelled, you gave out another "delusion" about "many Western politicians have spoken out"
          Come on, you admit that you do not know more than one trustworthy statement of a "Western" politician on this topic, and I apologize for accusing you of lying.
          PS So what is the alternative for Russia? Is it really a monarchy?
          PSS It is so difficult to find among the "hurray-patriots" people who are able to give at least some arguments in support of their views ... I hope you belong to these few.
          1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
            ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 27 November 2020 19: 14
            +2
            I must admit that I took the numerous references to the words of Thatcher and Albright, which I heard not from Putin and Zakharova, on faith. I fully admit that it is wrong. But I am in no hurry to recognize you as an expert. Therefore, for now, I only admit that I was mistaken. I will be ready to sign it. To be honest, they are interested, we need to bury ourselves in the sources.

            As far as possible alternatives are concerned, no, not a monarchy. Now in Russia you can only recreate a parody of it. After all, a monarch is thought of as one who has, so to speak, Divine sanction for his rule (which, by the way, does not always mean that this power is inherited). Therefore, it is possible only in a very religious society, and even then not always. For example, a different shape was found in Iran.

            From my point of view, which I have already outlined, Russia needs an authoritarian form of government (which now, in fact, seems to be, but not according to the law, but thanks to Putin's authority) with a well-built feedback from the people. It may sound silly, but I am a supporter of restricting suffrage. I believe that people at least 30 years old should receive the right to vote. And only those who have a family and children (there may be exceptions, for example, when it comes to officers). Those who have not been prosecuted, etc. I will not try to draft a bill, I will only indicate the point of view. This is a topic for a separate post and not for discussion in the comments.
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 28 November 2020 15: 53
              -1
              Quote: ASK.21.07
              then no, not a monarchy.

              Well, thank God.

              Quote: ASK.21.07
              Russia needs an authoritarian form of government

              Judging by 1917 and 1991, not the best choice. I have already said that autocracy is less and less on earth and this is not because they are not fashionable, they are stupidly less effective and lose the competition. Their time is running out.
              If an authoritarian leader (like the current one) turns out to be a bad leader, it is very difficult to replace him, all the more painless for the country.
              You, as I understand it, are for something like a zemstvo? Why are such multistage elections better than direct ones? And of course it seems to me that that experience was not very successful, again remembering about 17 years old.

              Quote: ASK.21.07
              with a clearly structured feedback from the people.

              This is the Achilles heel of autocracy, a weak connection with ordinary citizens. The only reliable connection is direct elections.

              Quote: ASK.21.07
              I believe that people at least 30 years old should receive the right to vote.

              In my opinion, this would be a mistake. Young people are the source of all kinds of protests and revolutions, and by forbidding them to participate in elections, one of the steam release valves will close.
              In addition, the thought that up to 30 is mentally disabled, we can just as well say that after 65, senile changes in the brain do not allow making meaningful choices.

              Quote: ASK.21.07
              (there may be exceptions, for example, when it comes to officers).

              What are you talking about officers. These are legends that they have one crinkle and then from the cap. Most of them are reasonable and adequate people.

              In short, I did not understand what you see as the advantage of an authoritarian regime.
              1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
                ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 28 November 2020 16: 34
                +1
                Quote: Oleg Rambover
                What are you talking about officers

                I put it wrong. I know that stupid officers are very rare and the object of extremely caustic attacks from colleagues. I meant that if an officer has no family and is under 30, he MUST get the right to vote. Since he serves the country and has experience of responsibility for people.

                Age restrictions - not because people under 30 are stupid, but also because a person under 35 cannot be president. Experience is needed. And if a person does not have a family, therefore, he has no experience of responsibility for someone (usually, but not always). This is where I see the logic here. But this is all, of course, disputable.

                The dignity of autocracy is that it gives greater stability to the state. And democracy is most often an illustration to the fable "The Swan, Cancer and the Pike". I faintly imagine that given the political chaos that is now taking place in many democratic countries - and America, for example - they are able to resolve the issues of a strategic nature that are facing them. It was due to the ability of the authoritarian model of government to mobilize the country that the USSR was able to prepare for war. Yes, after the lost time spent on the Civil War and overcoming its consequences, it had to be done at the cost of enormous sacrifices, but after the war there was no collectivization or the Great Terror, but in five years the country was raised from ruins. And look at China.

                Although, if we are completely honest, it is not so much the political model that is important as its ability to give way to the power of the most competent. It's just that authoritarianism, balanced by popular representation, which should provide that very feedback, in my opinion, will cope with this task better. But universal suffrage (IMHO) is a fiction. Even Pobedonostsev, for all his odiousness, quite rightly pointed out that in this case "the most ambitious and impudent" are making their way to power, and not the best. I would add - "and those with the greatest resources - financial or administrative." It is impossible to claim victory in the general elections without serious money. Therefore, either representatives of big business, or those who enjoy their support in exchange for lobbying their interests, win.
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 November 2020 00: 19
                  -1
                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  I put it wrong. I know that stupid officers are very rare and the object of extremely caustic attacks from colleagues. I meant that if an officer has no family and is under 30, he MUST get the right to vote. Since he serves the country and has experience of responsibility for people.

                  Yes, I understand, just kidding. Are you a military man? In my opinion, if the electoral rights of the military should differ from other citizens, then only for the worse. The army should be out of politics. And honestly, I didn’t notice that among the officers I knew were particularly responsible in comparison with civilians. And when you look at my friend, a former submariner, your words about responsibility in general seem ridiculous.

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  This is where I see the logic here. But this is all, of course, disputable.

                  That's exactly what is highly controversial. If we deprive citizens of their rights, let’s also deprive them of obligations, for example, do not pay taxes, do not serve in the army. Vote this is not Newton's binomial, which will change 30 years and the family is not clear. Responsibility is so individual.

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  The dignity of autocracy is that it gives greater stability to the state.

                  I am a citizen of the Russian Federation and live in St. Petersburg (as I understand it, and you are also from the Russian Federation), the Russian Federation was formed on the ruins of the USSR. The USSR was brought to the state of a failed state by autocrats. The USSR was formed on the ruins of the Republic of Ingushetia. RI was brought to the state of failed state by autocrats.
                  Can you give an example of at least one developed democracy (this means that the change of personalities in power in it took place in accordance with the legal procedure 3-4 times), which brought the country to the state of a failed state (we do not take a military defeat)?
                  Practice is the main criterion of truth, and so practice refutes your statement.

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  I faintly imagine that given the political chaos that is currently taking place in many democratic countries - and America, for example - they are able to solve the issues of a strategic nature that are facing them.

                  In the United States, this has been a rift for 250 years, but this did not prevent them from becoming the only superpower in the world.

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  The USSR was able to prepare for war precisely due to the ability of the authoritarian model of government to mobilize the country. Yes, after the lost time spent on the Civil War and overcoming its consequences, I had to do it at the cost of enormous sacrifices, but after the war there was no collectivization or the Great Terror, but in five years the country was raised from ruins.

                  Yes, mobilization is better for autocracies, it's a pity in all other respects they have difficulties. And remember how much in WWII the USA created an army practically from scratch.
                  I don't understand what it means "at the cost of enormous sacrifices." What, without these sacrifices, it was impossible to do the same thing in the same time? This is precisely the lack of autocracy, in a democracy one does not have to pay "huge sacrifices" for the same processes.

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  And look at China.

                  And what is China?

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  Although, if we are completely honest, it is not so much the political model that is important as its ability to give way to the power of the most competent.

                  And why do you think that this process is more effective in autocracies? Comparing Rogozin with Jim Bridenstine, your statement seems highly controversial.

                  Quote: ASK.21.07
                  It's just that authoritarianism, balanced by popular representation, which should provide that very feedback, in my opinion, will cope with this task better. But universal suffrage (IMHO) is a fiction.

                  Where else has this “people's representation providing feedback” under authoritarian rule been implemented? What does it look like? And why is this "popular representation" not a fiction? In my opinion, it wakes up rather a fiction under authoritarian rulers.
                  1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
                    ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 29 November 2020 00: 49
                    0
                    Why throw arguments at each other? I just expressed my opinion in response to your interest. And we argue in vain. Time will tell which path Russia will take. Perhaps you will be right. Only our dispute in the comments will definitely not affect this in any way))). Again, my goal was only to express my opinion. But only.
  10. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
    ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 27 November 2020 19: 18
    +1
    Quote: ASK.21.07
    It is so difficult to find among the "hurray-patriots" people who are able to give at least some arguments in support of their views

    I consider myself a patriot, of course, but I don't quite understand what the word "hurray-patriot" means? A fan of TV "Zvezda" who believes what they say? If you meant it, believe me, I do not belong to this number.
  11. Magistr Offline Magistr
    Magistr (Valery) 2 December 2020 00: 07
    0
    Strong power plus connection with the people? I looked through the directory and found nothing but dictatorship. Does the author know the basics of political science?