Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Websites Critical of Elections Targeted In DDoS Attack

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hate-to-borscht-your-bubble dept.

Government 156

theshowmecanuck submits this news from Russia, where "Websites which exposed violations in Russia's parliamentary elections were inaccessible Sunday in a hacking attack they said was aimed at preventing them revealing the extent of election day fraud." Further, says the linked article, "Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose United Russia party is expected to win Sunday's polls but with a reduced majority, has denounced non-governmental organisations like Golos, comparing them to the disciple Judas who betrayed Jesus. Russia has seen an upsurge in Internet penetration since the last elections in 2007, and analysts have said the explosion of critical material on the web poses one of the biggest challenges to United Russia's grip on power."

cancel ×

156 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It did not help (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259548)

"United Russia", the party of Putin has dropped from 64% of the votes to 48.5%.

Re:It did not help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259734)

Those in control of the US, UK etc must be worried about where this is all going.
Will the revolutions go all the way to the top :)

Re:It did not help (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261460)

You're kidding right? I don't know about UK politics but in the US both parties are controlled by the same people. We get to choose between tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Re:It did not help (3, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261772)

... in the US both parties are controlled by the same people.

You're exaggerating or kidding, right? They aren't controlled by the same people. Those different people do have the same motivations, though, so the resulting behaviors are often identical. Your declaration would have been accurate enough if you'd said, "controlled by people who behave the same", but you didn't say that.

Re:It did not help (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262318)

You're kidding, right? Both major parties have differing agendas. The fact that they may have some common ground between each other does not make their agendas one in the same.

Re:It did not help (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259804)

Re:It did not help (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260250)

Indeed, this is the bigger news. Putin lost majority. In a perfect democracy, he would be forced to form a coalition with one of the other parties. Of course, most representative systems are rigged in favor of the big parties, and Russia is no exception (with a 7% limit). He will have much more than 48.5% in the duma.

Re:It did not help (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260368)

Allegedly there was still ballot fraud in United Russia's favor, or so at least one opposition source has claimed, so UR's popularity might be a decent bit smaller.

Re:It did not help (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260406)

Don't go by "allegedly", see for yourself [slashdot.org] .

Re:It did not help (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261934)

Links to a bunch of Youtube videos and a link back to Slashdot that doesn't go anywhere besides the front page.

Re:It did not help (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262108)

I apologize, the link to Slashdot is a mispaste.

For the rest of them, what do you think the videos are for? They all document various violations by people observing them first hand.

Re:It did not help (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260858)

The "allegations of fraud" started several months before the elections.

Re:It did not help (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260444)

I think there may be a bit of a problem [imgur.com] with the electronic counting system that they've been using (these are the stats for Rostov - add up the percentages...).

On the other hand, everything's as planned [twimg.com] in Chechnya.

Not so fast (1)

SuurMyy (1003853) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260492)

According to Miriam Elder [twitter.com] , the Moscow correspondent for The Guardian it seems that United Russia may get less than 50% of the votes, but this might not mean that they get less than 50% of seats in the parliament because of the 7% threshold for the smaller parties.

This Damn Internet (3, Insightful)

artifactual (955774) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260820)

Turns out it greatly exacerbates the peasants' lust for democracy. But we didn't know! We were just trying to build a more robust military communication system. May god forgive us.

Re:It did not help (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261974)

According to exit polls.

A popular nationalistic poet Emelin formulated it quite precisely, yet obscenely:

Choke on sperm

Sucking oil pipeline

46% with "administrative resource".
 
.... unbelievable.

No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serious. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259568)

Don't post any "In Soviet Russia ..." jokes here, please. This submission is strictly for serious discussion.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259594)

Given how well the communists are doing in the election Soviet Russia may be a reality again in a few years.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259732)

From my observations as an American it seems they have a choice between being run by a corporate mafia or run by a communist party. Pick the one that works better for you, I suppose.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259790)

Well, that's one more choice than Americans have got.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260046)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260472)

Yup, all we have to choose between is "corporate mafia (audiovisual)" and "corporate mafia (oil)".

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (4, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260670)

Under Capitalism, man oppresses man. Under Communism, it's exactly the opposite.

- Woody Allen

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261474)

Damn. That's brilliant.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (5, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260228)

A significant proportion of communist vote on these elections is, effectively, protest vote against United Russia. We used to have "none of the above" on the ballot ages ago, it was scrapped under Putin. Then people started to ignore elections altogether, in hopes that, if enough do, they don't get the voter turnout needed to elect anyone - the government has responded by removing the requirement for minimum voter turnout. So right now the only way to vote against the party in power is to vote for some other party, and for preference many people vote for the second biggest one to maximize the effect.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260794)

and for preference many people vote for the second biggest one to maximize the effect.

... and this is how a two-party dictatorship is born.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261046)

Sure beats a single-party one. And it's a realistic, achievable goal at this stage.

Besides, the point of this exercise is to make a break from the past 12 years and to force the votes to actually be counted in a way that is prominently visible. A huge staple of United Russia's propaganda is that "everyone is for us" - basically, an appeal to citizens to vote same as everyone else. But this hinges on them actually having that popular support. Every person that didn't vote for them on this election will bring another person who won't on the next one.

Also, strange as it may sound, commies are actually one of the saner parties in this election. Alternatives include e.g. the guy who became famous by saying things like "Russian soldiers shall wash their boots in the Indian ocean".

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261442)

So right now the only way to vote against the party in power is to vote for some other party, and for preference many people vote for the second biggest one to maximize the effect.

I could follow you right up to there. Then you lost me. Are you talking about Russia or about the USA here?

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261512)

I know it sounds eerily familiar to you Americans. Difference is, your parties juggle a few percent back and forth. In our case, it was the very real difference between having United Russia get 66% and a constitutional majority (Russian constitution can be amended by 2/3 of both upper and lower house of the parliament - they've already used it to extend presidential term to 6 years), or having it get 50%, even if that means that commies also get 25%. At least, with commies there, they'll be at each other's throats most of the time, which can be subverted from within the parties (like Tea Party did to Republicans).

It's far from perfect, but it's a step ahead from what we had before, and it's a step that could actually be made.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (4, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259676)

In soviet russia, voters elect representatives.

Re:No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serio (1)

mark_elf (2009518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261018)

This upsurge in Russian penetration is relevant to my interests. I need to see more evidence.

Sites are mostly up (3, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259606)

Most of the websites are up by now. And probably some of the DDoS attacks can be explained by surge in the number of viewers.

Well, the good news is that Putin's party has lost constitutional majority in the Parliament (constitutional majority is required to be able to modify some parts of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The bad news is that they still get majority in the parliament. And Internet has been instrumental in that - it's about the only remaining independent source of information in Russia.

The Russian Internet meme "United Russia is the party of crooks and thieves" got so popular that it has even jumped into official United Russia propaganda.

no Majority (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259610)

according to exit polls and votes counted so far, United Russia will not be in the majority.
CNN source [cnn.com]

Re:no Majority (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259984)

according to exit polls and votes counted so far, United Russia will not be in the majority

You want to hear something interesting? The United Nations uses exit polls to judge the fairness of elections worldwide. If the "official" results differ from the exit polls substantially, it cannot be certified as a fair election.

In the US, official results have been deviating from exit polls to a greater extent in every election starting in 2000. Of course, we are told that this just means that exit polling just isn't that good.

You decide.

Re:no Majority (1)

nyfle (1995318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260732)

In the US, official results have been deviating from exit polls to a greater extent in every election starting in 2000. Of course, we are told that this just means that exit polling just isn't that good.

Admittedly I don't know how exit polls work in other countries, but when the poll relies solely on people telling the truth as to which party they voted for, they really aren't that great.

Re:no Majority (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261218)

In a democratic society with a long-standing culture of openness and freedom, most people don't hide their political beliefs, and will happily tell you which way they had voted. If people are willing to lie in exit polls in sufficient numbers that it skews the result, it indicates that something's very wrong with democracy in the country.

mafia party (5, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259624)

United Russia is a mafia party, literally, it's full of mafia bosses, it's a criminal syndicate that took over the country and destroyed the democracy in its infancy, plunged the country into the age of corruption.

Of-course it doesn't help that Russia has too many people that are made dependent upon the government for survival, that's how a criminal party takes hold and doesn't let go - the bosses literally gather people in the meetings and tell them that they will dole out money based on voting participation and the voting outcome, they also want people to prove their voting record (illegally obviously), the votes are bought and voters are intimidated.

US and the rest should take notice - once most of your businesses are just a few large ones, and the small/medium sized businesses disappear and are constantly under pressure to pay huge 'fines'/bribes to local 'politicians' and often the businesses are destroyed - illegally taken over with police force from their owners and just handed over to local mafia/United Russia party bosses, then you build a huge dependent class of people, who don't have jobs, they can't have jobs because the largest (oil/gas/metal/wood/whatever raw material) companies only need so many workers and the service sector is all monopolized.

Without a thriving middle class (and I mean BUSINESS class) the economy only allows 3 classes of people: bottom dolers, top mafia bosses and owners and monopolists in every business sector, very few monopolists that run every business.

Then you the country can't get out of this predicament - the people are poor and they don't know how NOT to be poor anymore, their only way of living depends on being fully subsidized by the government and they can't afford any change of government and any instability carries a promise of hunger.

Of-course Russia still has some protesters from the middle class and students, but right now it seems to be irrelevant, the special forces there don't hesitate to apply massive amounts of damage to the protesters. Beating somebody and even killing them is really not a big deal - people who live off the dole are really just insects in a system like that.

That's why you don't want socialism or communism or totalitarianism or dictatorship or any kind. You want many independent individual capable of taking care of themselves and by proxy of the economy by doing creative stuff, providing products and jobs and investment opportunities. But a large number of people like that not only improve the economy, but they are too independent to be held in shackles of oppression, they don't want a large parasite mafia class above them taking everything from them and deciding for them what kind of a country they will live in.

Re:mafia party (5, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259662)

Dude, Russia is capitalistic to the extreme. Socialism had died in Russia in 1993.

"United Russia" is the end result of a capitalistic society without democratic checks and balances. It turns out that pure capitalism soon becomes indistinguishable from feudalism.

That's quite easy to understand, because giving business the ability to influence the government creates a feedback loop and pretty soon government becomes indistinguishable from business. Alternatively, giving business power to weaken the government results in business _becoming_ the government.

Re:mafia party (5, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259758)

Capitalism is just a word, which has nothing to do with the political system. It's not capitalism that turned into this authoritarian system, it's literally the fact that various former KGB and mafia bosses got together and used all sorts of violence in order to prevent any competition in the political arena. Khodorkovskiy is in jail not because of 'capitalism', he is in jail because a criminal is at the helm of the government and he put him there.

Here is an example of 'carousel' [youtube.com] - the people are instructed that they will be voting in 16 different schools (these are the same people), they are explicitly told who to vote for (United Russia obviously) and how to behave, which tables to approach, what to say to any authorities if they are questioned, etc.

The guy who shot this video asked if it makes sense to join the Party and he is told: obviously if you join it, you get material benefits, money whatever.

Then the video shows scenes of this same guy voting in multiple locations, by 5:30 it says: I voted 12 times already, almost done.

Re:mafia party (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259776)

In a way, they have truly applied cutthroat capitalism's win at any cost to democracy.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259782)

again, what does 'capitalism' have to do with the political system?

capitalism is an economic model - you overproduce, under-consume, use the savings as an investment capital.

Re:mafia party (5, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259860)

Let me quote you:

"That's why you don't want socialism or communism or totalitarianism or dictatorship or any kind"

If capitalism is just an economic model then why do you have problems with socialism which is also just an economic model?

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259892)

I don't need to repeat the same thing twice, that's what hyperlinks [slashdot.org] are for.

Re:mafia party (5, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261286)

No, he made a point, and you ignored him or you don't understand it.

Unfettered capitalism has just as much capacity for totalitarianism as communism. Capitalism, left to its own devices, naturally results in a few large players, who, if allowed to, will subvert and take over the government, simply buy it off. Plutocracy. This is why you need a strong government with strong regulatory powers to keep the marketplace fair by preventing the largest players from performing inevitable abuse, and breaking them up if necessary.

Your problem is that you only understand one narrative: the narrative of oppression from communism, where the government IS big business. That is not the only way oppression can form or function. The government can be the mafia, which you understand. But an uncontrolled corporate sphere can also function like a mafia, and it can simply turn a weak government into its puppet. This is what you see forming in the USA. You don't seem to understand that.

You NEED a strong central government, and you need a healthy marketplace of corporations kept in check. If you weaken the government, the power vacuum is simply filled by the largest corporations, who simply buy the government. Do you understand?

Re:mafia party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260000)

Capitalism will not abide a limit. Money and the economy won't stay out of politics, with enough time they'll circumvent any barriers put in place and then politics becomes an extension of capitalism.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260038)

Well obviously, because capitalism in itself does not require purity of any kind.

There has to be a political model built to ensure that the economic model stays in its place and does not start impeding the individual freedoms. Unfortunately we do not have a solution that is able to last for a very extended period of time (more than a few generations) yet.

Re:mafia party (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260100)

So you want pure capitalism, but you want a protection of personal freedoms? Those don't co-exist.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260186)

You are right, we don't have a good political model. We need a good political model and I made comments about it earlier here. [slashdot.org] The problem is that the government that is original set up based on principles of maximum individual liberties, freedoms and private property and contract law is allowed to change the law.

If you allow a government to change a law and the original law is set to maximize individual liberty, than any law change will result in reduction of individual liberties eventually leading to a disastrous outcome (socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship).

Re:mafia party (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259848)

"Capitalism is just a word, which has nothing to do with the political system"

Sure. So is socialism.

"Here is an example of 'carousel' [youtube.com] - the people are instructed that they will be voting in 16 different schools (these are the same people), they are explicitly told who to vote for (United Russia obviously) and how to behave, which tables to approach, what to say to any authorities if they are questioned, etc."

"United Russia" just uses its "market power" to influence election results. And they are definitely not 'mafia' in the sense that they do not consist of members of organized criminal. "United Russia" consists mostly of medium business, the old mafia bosses are really irrelevant now. Stunning success of unrestricted capitalism!

Re:mafia party (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259884)

Sure. So is socialism.

- it ends being an economic model and becomes a political system once it is forced upon unwilling participants.

Capitalism is not forced upon people top down, because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system; socialism is forced upon people through government power.

"United Russia" just uses its "market power" to influence election results.

- whatever it is, it's not a free market, with people making choices based on the product. The carousel in the video is a way that the incumbent power stays in power by using the power it already has stolen from the market.

The market ended in Russia once Putin came to power.

Re:mafia party (2)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259908)

"it ends being an economic model and becomes a political system once it is forced upon unwilling participants."

And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

"Capitalism is not forced upon people top down, because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system; socialism is forced upon people through government power."

Sure. In capitalism you are not forced to work - you are not forced to breathe or eat either. Oh, and also business is not forced to obey small nuisances like the so called 'laws' and 'regulations'.

"- whatever it is, it's not a free market, with people making choices based on the product. The carousel in the video is a way that the incumbent power stays in power by using the power it already has stolen from the market."

Sure it is. It's just that choices are not made by regular people. If you have a few billions of rubles/dollars then your choice certainly important. In other words: "one dollar - one vote"!

Re:mafia party (1, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259952)

And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

- I am not surprised that you don't understand, earlier on you couldn't understand simple facts about inflation.

Capitalism is not something that is forced upon people by other people, socialism is.

Capitalism, if you want, is 'forced' upon people by nature of being alive on this planet. Capitalism is your work minus your consumption, whatever is left (under-consumption or overproduction) is what you call 'savings' and you can then reinvest it to make more profit. For example you can hire help to do what you do or you can buy a machine to make your own labor more efficient.

So a fisherman who catches more fish than he eats and than he barters for other necessities has a surplus. Given enough surplus he can buy a bigger boat, better net or hire labor. This makes him a capitalist.

Nobody FORCED him to be a capitalist except his own initiative.

Socialism is a bunch of people getting together who decided they are going to loot whatever a more enterprising 'fisherman' is saving and thus they impose a government and themselves (as thieves that they are) upon this fisherman.

Socialism is a political system while capitalism is the best economic model we have. That's the difference, but as I said, I remember you couldn't understand basic economics and you were stuck in the valley of Keynesian magic.

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259982)

"Capitalism, if you want, is 'forced' upon people by nature of being alive on this planet."

So is socialism in socialistic states - it's not forced on anyone, it just is. So your point is?

"Capitalism is your work minus your consumption, whatever is left (under-consumption or overproduction) is what you call 'savings' and you can then reinvest it to make more profit. For example you can hire help to do what you do or you can buy a machine to make your own labor more efficient."

Wrong, as usual.

Can you tell me:
1) Why Russia has no market economy. Maybe Russian Government now uses command economy and 5-year plans?

2) Why capitalism is just an economy model but socialism is something different?

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260034)

So is socialism in socialistic states - it's not forced on anyone, it just is. So your point is?

- of-course it's forced upon people.

Try and NOT pay the income taxes that the state forces you to pay for the so called 'social contract', which you have never signed. You'll quickly find yourself on the wrong side of a federal gun barrel.

Wrong, as usual.

- this statement is false.

1) Why Russia has no market economy. Maybe Russian Government now uses command economy and 5-year plans?

- the political system in Russia became hostage of the former power-brokers that came out of USSR. It's not a surprise that the largest criminal organizations in Russia originated out of ex-KGB agents. They don't subscribe to any individual liberty concepts, indeed it's anathema to their thinking, and don't mind using any amount of excessive police/military force to hold their ground.

It's basically a military dictatorship disguised as a democracy of some sort.

2) Why capitalism is just an economy model but socialism is something different?

- I already explained.

Capitalism naturally comes out of individual initiative, under-consumption and over-production that allows a person to build up some savings in order to increase his own efficiency to allow eventually a more comfortable life.

Socialism does not take a natural course of one individual subjugating his desires to the needs of other individuals in a collective, it is a system that forces this subjugation by the government power, which normally requires a revolution of some sort to come about. It's about grabbing power over other people that are more productive than you, it's theft and slavery.

Clearly one is an economic model and one is a political model, because economic model does not require government participation, political model does.

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260058)

I have asked you WHY Russian economy is not a MARKET economy. I haven't asked about the power balance. What exactly makes Russian economy to be non-market economy?

"Capitalism naturally comes out of individual initiative, under-consumption and over-production that allows a person to build up some savings in order to increase his own efficiency to allow eventually a more comfortable life."

It doesn't. "Barracks communism" comes naturally, as observed in primitive societies.

"Socialism does not take a natural course of one individual subjugating his desires to the needs of other individuals in a collective, it is a system that forces this subjugation by the government power, which normally requires a revolution of some sort to come about. It's about grabbing power over other people that are more productive than you, it's theft and slavery."

Nope. Socialism is a form of social structure where the society as a whole guarantees that its members won't be left on their own. It can be achieved by variety of means.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260280)

I have asked you WHY Russian economy is not a MARKET economy. I haven't asked about the power balance. What exactly makes Russian economy to be non-market economy?

- power balance is the answer to your question.

People who are in power currently don't want a market economy. A market economy requires acceptance of individual liberties and PROPERTY RIGHTS.

There are no property rights in Russia, not with the government bosses who use police force to raid companies and steal them from their owners. What is not clear about the fact that there is no way to have a market economy without rule of law?

The political system prevents market economy by not allowing the courts to be independent and by forcing the decisions of courts on every issue, from criminal cases to property rights.

It's all about liberties and rights and property rights and law protecting these rights.

You should really read a book F. Bastiat - The Law.

The basic premise is that whatever an individual should not be allowed to do based on criminal code, a government also should not be allowed to do. If an individual cannot steal, then government shouldn't be allowed to steal, etc.

It doesn't. "Barracks communism" comes naturally, as observed in primitive societies.

- It well may be, and we know of cases of this on any small scale, specifically starting with a FAMILY unit and getting into things like Kibbutz.

That's clearly not what I am talking about. There is no consensus (there may be a majority, but not a consensus) in so called 'socialist' countries about the taxes, rules, laws, regulations, monopoly support by gov't, money creation, etc.

All of those things should be out of reach of governments and none of those things must be forced by power of gov't.

Nope. Socialism is a form of social structure where the society as a whole guarantees that its members won't be left on their own. It can be achieved by variety of means.

- except that none of those means are voluntary. None of the people who pay taxes pay them voluntary, do you not understand that basic principle?

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260384)

"People who are in power currently don't want a market economy. A market economy requires acceptance of individual liberties and PROPERTY RIGHTS."

Let me quote an encyclopedia for you: "A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy". There is no planning in Russia or excessive state-based redistribution of wealth to poor people.

So Russian economy is definitely a market economy. But somehow 'invisible hand' in Russia works only to tighten the noose on neck of people.

"- It well may be, and we know of cases of this on any small scale, specifically starting with a FAMILY unit and getting into things like Kibbutz."

Only in societies that already provide most of social services. In primitive societies (think about aboriginal societies) there is often no notion of private property at all.

"- except that none of those means are voluntary. None of the people who pay taxes pay them voluntary, do you not understand that basic principle?"

I pay taxes voluntarily and gladly. So your statement is falsified by a counterexample. Do you not understand that basic principle?

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260562)

Let me quote an encyclopedia for you: "A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy". There is no planning in Russia or excessive state-based redistribution of wealth to poor people.

- there is no market economy in Russia because there is no rule of law and property rights.

Market cannot discover prices in a system where laws are unstable and whatever laws do exist are not followed. I already explained this earlier [slashdot.org] . There is no way to have a stable universe with stars, planets, solar systems and life in it if the basic laws are changing all the time. Same with market - there is no way to have proper mechanisms of price discovery in a political system that does not enforce the rule of law but instead violates the law all the time.

So Russia needs cheaper products because population is poor, but the population is poor because the private business is discouraged and violated all the time and credit is not available for private businesses to start either, all credit is eaten up by the government and largest monopolies. Without new businesses the demand cannot be satisfied as Russian really cannot pay for the products because they are unproductive due to that political climate of government promoted lawlessness.

This puts most goods out of rich of most Russians (not the dwellers of largest cities, but the majority of the people living on the outskirts, where most people live in that country).

The market is sort of there, but the prices are above what Russians can afford because the government prevents businesses from appearing with all the corruption (on top of whatever rules and taxes that they do have).

Russia will remain a poor country in terms of having large poor population as long as the government uses its police and military force to prevent any laws from being applied to the government itself.

Only in societies that already provide most of social services. In primitive societies (think about aboriginal societies) there is often no notion of private property at all.

- I said capitalism is a natural system and socialism is not. Poor societies cannot provide any social services, that's why social services really only appeared as the economies grew thanks to capitalism and then political power was taken over by the socialist movement (movement of the people who wanted the benefit of higher efficiencies achieved by the capitalists but didn't want to or couldn't work to achieve the same efficiencies on their own).

I pay taxes voluntarily and gladly. So your statement is falsified by a counterexample. Do you not understand that basic principle?

- well, you are lying. See, you use an accountant I am certain you don't just take your gross income and then take a large chunk of that and send it to whatever government you pay your taxes to.

You use an accountant and you minimize your taxes to the best of your abilities. That disqualifies your tax paying from being made 'gladly', and also I am sure you had moments when you needed more money than you had in your pocket, didn't you have those moments? If you didn't have to pay those taxes you would have that money.

Also it is obvious that in USA for example, the income taxes are distributed disproportionately to the top earner brackets, the bottom 50% only pays 3% of income taxes.

Even the 'socialist' Europe does not go that route, it uses VAT to equalize the tax payments across all people, not just hitting the top brackets with disproportionate taxes.

Anyway, I have work to do, you know, to be a productive capitalist here. Good night.

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260764)

"- there is no market economy in Russia because there is no rule of law and property rights."

Market economy doesn't require either of that. You fail again.

"- I said capitalism is a natural system and socialism is not. Poor societies cannot provide any social services"

But they do. Poor societies generally provide communal care for old and infirm people. Without insurance companies, you might notice. Even apes have this behavior - they care about injured and cooperate to protect against predators.

"- well, you are lying. See, you use an accountant I am certain you don't just take your gross income and then take a large chunk of that and send it to whatever government you pay your taxes to."

Nope. My company (I own it) uses 'simplified taxation system' which means that I simply send 7.5% of gross income as tax (and I don't even need to track expenses). On top of my personal salary I pay additional 35% of tax (includes social security tax and personal income tax).

But you simply can't understand that not all people are assholes like you.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262356)

Market economy doesn't require either of that. You fail again.

- of-course it does. Just because you read some incomplete definition and keep misunderstanding the fundamentals doesn't mean I fail, it means you are incapable of seeing through the issue. Market economy requires both: price discovery and ability of the market to start new production.

Russian government does not follow even its own laws due to massive corruption and the laws that do exist do not protect individual liberties and property well enough. Consequently no new business can start in Russia that is not trivial, such as some tiny retail operation. The mining businesses are all monopolized and whatever manufacturing and farming that is happening there has no competition due to inability to have a lawful society as well as stable monetary policy and available credit. All of this is due to government behaving towards the citizens like a criminal organization, well because it is.

But they do. Poor societies generally provide communal care for old and infirm people. Without insurance companies, you might notice. Even apes have this behavior - they care about injured and cooperate to protect against predators.

- sure, but it's not mandated by any government. It's purely voluntary that it happens, and it happens on family level, so the old generations help the young and the young take care of the old.

This is not what I am talking about, I am talking about institutional socialism/communism and the resulting fascism/dictatorship.

Nope. My company (I own it) uses 'simplified taxation system' which means that I simply send 7.5% of gross income as tax (and I don't even need to track expenses). On top of my personal salary I pay additional 35% of tax (includes social security tax and personal income tax).

- you have a mortgage? Do you deduct it? Do you have children? There are tax credits. etc.etc. Just because you have an opportunity to contract yourself out at a 'simplified' taxation system doesn't make me wrong.

I am not going to ask and you shouldn't be providing all of your statements, it's a stupid thing to do (to ask and to provide them), however I am pretty certain that your behavior is modified in a way that uses as much of your 'business' as possible to pay for any expenses that you would otherwise pay out of your 'personal' salary.

I am sure that you do your best to optimize your taxes and the fact that you are using a 'simplified system' speaks in favor of that (whatever convenience that you are getting there, you could as well choose not to use it and go ahead and pay the maximum corporate tax, couldn't you?)

But you simply can't understand that not all people are assholes like you.

- they are just liars. But this conversation is over.

Re:mafia party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260534)

Small businesses as far as the eye can see is a fantasy land becoming less and less believable every day. There are certain things that are necessities, not wants, but necessities. A bunch of businesses produce food. Some do badly and fail, and others succeed greatly. The biggest businesses buy the smaller ones. All markets are constantly moving towards oligopoly, and finance capitalism will push them there if it needs to. What will you do when your only source of food is either Food A Inc or Food B Co? And when one buys up the other?

Re:mafia party (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260736)

Capitalism and socialism are both ways to handle scarcity. And they both end up taking away the livelihood of a certain group of people. Under socialism those who are more talented, willing to work harder or just better able to perform get their extra earnings taken away to provide for those who didn't make out so well in the genetic lottery or are just plain lazy. Under capitalism, anyone who isn't willing to go along for the ride loses the means to live under a roof, keep themselves fed etc.

With the amount of people we have and the limited amounts of room, food and energy available, we need some sort of system to handle the scarcity. This can range from pure socialism to just letting anyone who had a stroke of bad luck or an accident rot away on the sidewalk. As it turns out with most of these cases, the best solutions lie somewhere in the middle.

Re:mafia party (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260554)

"it ends being an economic model and becomes a political system once it is forced upon unwilling participants."

And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

You never heard of the communes in the USA? Under a capitalist system one can get together with some like minded fellows and use the capitalist system to purchase a pocket of communism within it. Notice that a communist system does not allow this; there is no way to work within a communist system to purchase your own pocket of capitalism.n Just read Moore's Utopia and see what happens to Utopians who try to create private property. Thus the GP's statement that communism must be forced upon people while capitalism is not.

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260616)

"there is no way to work within a communist system to purchase your own pocket of capitalism"

I'm not talking about communism (which is political system) but about socialism (which is socio-economical system). Nobody is holding you from creating your own currency in, say, socialistic Sweden and setting up your very own pocket of unrestricted capitalism.

Re:mafia party (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260928)

Socialism is the intermediary step on the way to communism wherein a single party runs the show with no opposition tolerated. Both are integrated political-economic systems. But that's a different fine point to haggle over. Meanwhile, no, Sweden is no socialist. It is a social democracy. The Swedish state does not own all the means of production and property. They just have huge social welfare systems. A better thing to consider is whether you could have pooled resources together with your friends in, say, the 1970's Soviet Union and create a pocket of capitalism.

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261082)

Not really. Soviet-style socialism was thought to be intermediary step to communism. But all Soviet-style planned economies have failed quite spectacularly. Sweden is 'socialist' in the sense that it has cradle-to-grave welfare system (which includes social security, healthcare, education, etc.). But OK, I won't argue

"A better thing to consider is whether you could have pooled resources together with your friends in, say, the 1970's Soviet Union and create a pocket of capitalism."

Even during Stalin era USSR allowed individual entrepreneurs - you could have your own shoe repair shop, for example. You could sell products that you grew on your personal farm, etc. Hired labor was not allowed as well plain reselling of goods.

But I'm certainly not stating that Soviet-style socialism is somehow superior to market-based economies with good regulation.

Re:mafia party (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260030)

capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system

Capitalism is based on mindless competition and growth, which is "natural" in the same sense that bacteria multiplying in a petri dish till they all die from exhausting the resources and poisoning the medium is natural. Sure, ok. Very natural. Also maybe it's natural for humans to be a tiiiny little bit more intelligent than bacteria? Or do you not think our capacity to think, analyse the consequences of our behaviour, and change it if these consequences are negative is natural? Is thought an unnatural aberration in your book? Should thinking and behaving like rational beings be rejected as "unnatural"? Should we really all behave like bacteria, because that's the "natural" way to do things?

This is all the sacrosant "free market" is, a petri dish where we are "free" to commit collective suicide through individual selfishness.

Personally I think perhaps it's time to start behaving as if we had evolved a little above the level of pond scum. Even if our politicians evidently haven't.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260086)

Capitalism is based on mindless competition and growth,

- no, capitalism does not require competition actually. Also there is nothing 'mindless' about competition.

Capitalism requires initiative to over-produce and under-consume using the saved difference to improve efficiency not for the sake of "mindless growth" but for the sake of improving ones own life by allowing less manual work to be applied to the more sophisticated tools/land/labor combination to achieve more gain with less pain.

It really is about people trying to work less by producing more with smarter work that is achieved initially only through thrift and savings and eventually through efficiencies on a larger scale.

What we should be making sure of is that this economic model does not get into power over individuals by taking over a government process, because it clearly is not suitable as a political model that is aimed at maximizing individual liberties.

Re:mafia party (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260382)

I don't know what planet you come from, but here on Earth we don't have an economic system called Capitalism that does not force its participants to compete, such that Capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few winners who can then exploit the labour of those who have lost.

What you describe, people working in a sufficiently efficient manner that they may survive without undue stress, is not called Capitalism here. That's just ordinary subsistance. It doesn't become Capitalism until other people come into the picture and a process of competition among them leads to such a sufficient differential in accumulated wealth that one can benefit from the work of others, because that one has "capital" and the others don't. Hence the name, see.

I called this process "mindless" as an exact synonym of your own term "natural". What I mean is that competition does not occur because it is the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, and so we mindfully decide to engage in competition. Competition happens because we behave like mindless bacteria gobbling up resources while they're still there, ignorant of what will happen when they run out. I called growth mindless for the same reason.

And indeed I insist, the basic characteristics of Capitalism, those that fully define it and distinguish it from other economic systems, are that Capitalism requires competition and growth. And this till exhaustion of resources, independently of the greater good of the participants in the system. Hence mindless.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260686)

I don't know what planet you come from, but here on Earth we don't have an economic system called Capitalism that does not force its participants to compete, such that Capital becomes concentrated in the hands of a few winners who can then exploit the labour of those who have lost.

1. Nobody exploits labor. If you don't like your job you can quit, you can talk to your employer, you can start your own business.

2. Capitalism does not require competition, it only requires a positive surplus between production and consumption and then reinvestment of the positive surplus.

What you describe, people working in a sufficiently efficient manner that they may survive without undue stress, is not called Capitalism here. That's just ordinary subsistance. It doesn't become Capitalism until other people come into the picture and a process of competition among them leads to such a sufficient differential in accumulated wealth that one can benefit from the work of others, because that one has "capital" and the others don't. Hence the name, see.

- capital savings always come out of overproduction and underconsumption difference.

People use competition to acquire more market share to form their capital faster, that's true. That's not the definition of capitalism, it's more of survival of the fittest, and capitalism is just a tool used in that process.

Capital does not have to be all concentrated in the hands of just one or only a few participants. But that's where Free Market comes into play - you want market free of government manipulation so that competition that people naturally engage in is constructive and rewards people with capital based on satisfaction of the market demands rather than buying government provided power (corruption).

Competition happens because we behave like mindless bacteria gobbling up resources while they're still there, ignorant of what will happen when they run out. I called growth mindless for the same reason.

- I beg to differ. Clearly those who win in this process win the universe. It may seem mindless because there is no intelligent design behind it, but I have shown in my preceding comment that intelligent design leads to negative outcomes for the society.

Cheers.

Re:mafia party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38261108)

OK it's time to go to bed and we're obviously not going to agree on this, so I'll only bother you one more time. Back to my two obsessions, competition and growth. We've talked more about competition than growth, and you claim competition is not necessary. But I insist that it is: it is a requirement imposed by the need for growth. Now, if you tell me that Capitalism does not require growth, that one can have a steady-state economy and still call it Capitalism, then obviously we're talking at cross purposes and nothing in this conversation makes any sense. Otherwise:

People use competition to acquire more market share to form their capital faster, that's true. That's not the definition of capitalism, it's more of survival of the fittest, and capitalism is just a tool used in that process.

If you are in the Capitalist market and you don't compete for market share you will be driven out by those who do compete, because all participants are driven by growth. It is exactly as you say, the survival of the fittest, but there is nothing optional about it. You compete or you die. You strive for growth or you disappear. Competition is not just a way to accelerate the accumulation of capital. It is the only way to accumulate any in the first place, and keep it or increase it at all.

Capital does not have to be all concentrated in the hands of just one or only a few participants.

It doesn't have to, you could in theory have such a balance of strength among all market participants that many small actors survive. In practice any small difference soon multiplies its effect, some actors become disproportionately powerful, and "consolidation" takes place at an accelerated rate. In reality Capitalism tends naturally to concentration in very few hands of the vast majority of wealth (and power, because you insist on separating economics from politics but that's impossibly naive. Or do you have an example, even just one, of a system anywhere at any time in history where power and wealth were not inseparably linked?)

Clearly those who win in this process win the universe.

Sadly, I fear we all lose. If you take a step back for a minute and consider survival in the long run, not just prosperity in the short term, the way the Capitalist economy expands and turns resources into profit will make the planet uninhabitable within a few generations. I don't see any winners here.

It may seem mindless because there is no intelligent design behind it, but I have shown in my preceding comment that intelligent design leads to negative outcomes for the society.

And here indeed we must disagree. I have not seen many examples, if any, of "intelligent design" actually put to practice in governance or economics. At least not intelligent in the sense of rationally designed for the common good. Intelligent if at all only in the sense of cunning, of maximising the benefit for those who are already in power. They all have negative outcomes for society because they were never intended to have positive outcomes for any but the few who hold the reigns. And this applies no less to the corporate-political elites of Capitalism than to the planned economies of the old Socialist block.

I'm sure we will never agree, you seem such an idealist that you make me feel like an old cynic. But thank you for the debate all the same. Good night!

Re:mafia party (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260068)

because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system

Natural != Better. Nature is a complex self organizing system, but it's exactly that: self organizing. There's no intelligence directing its development. We are intelligent, we can do better simply because we can plan things. If you think natural is better, then you're saying that all our advances in science and technology are inferior to cave dwelling.

Re:mafia party (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260140)

Well, we all are familiar with the outcomes of the 'intelligent' design imposed upon the economies by all these various political planners.

Be it USSR with its planned economy or North Korea or former "Communist" China or Cuba, be it USA Congress passing laws that made it more profitable to give out liar loans than honest loans because of government guarantees, or be it the Federal reserve and the counterfeiting since the 1913 and ever more counterfeiting and inflation since 1971, it's all "intelligently" designed.

AFAIC I don't consider intelligent design to be superior to natural outcome of a capitalist free market.

Re:mafia party (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260212)

However, central government in the USSR also transformed the country from an agrarian society to an industrial superpower with nuclear weapons in 20 years.

Government in the USA built the Interstate system and railroad system before that providing infrastructure for growth.

Re:mafia party (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260360)

However, central government in the USSR also transformed the country from an agrarian society to an industrial superpower with nuclear weapons in 20 years.

- by murdering a bunch of people, including near a dozen of my ancestors, forcefully relocating people from Ukraine to say Kazakhstan, causing massive numbers of deaths via starvation in Ukraine.

Also the so called 'super power' was a joke. The only thing that was 'super' about it was the size of military and the weaponry and space rockets. Nothing else was 'super', not even toilet paper.

Government in the USA built the Interstate system and railroad system before that providing infrastructure for growth.

- and exacerbated the Great Depression in the process, creating false incentives for auto-travel, creating unmaintainable infrastructure (unmanageable without subsidies, that do end eventually, they always end as they crash the economy).

Also it destroyed air and rail travel in the process, caused beginning of massive pollution problem, created oil dependence and destroyed all sorts of private enterprise opportunities such as in mass transit.

Also it created a power imbalance that allowed the federal government to steal unauthorized power from the States.

Good stuff, very good stuff. I wouldn't vote for it. [slashdot.org]

Re:mafia party (2, Interesting)

Gaian-Orlanthii (1032980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260688)

I met a Russian woman once in Germany (nice woman, very smart) and I cracked a joke about Russian corruption. She spent the next half-hour ranting about corruption in Russia and how while Europeans are shocked by a corruption scandal, Russians simply think: "Fuck I wish I thought of that first". She *hates* Russians. Can you blame her?

Re:mafia party (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261568)

Part of the problem (only a part) was that the West focused on "democracy" in Russia (and the rest of Eastern Europe) after the fall of the Soviet Union, when what they should have focused on was rule of law. If one looks at history, one discovers that democracy without rule of law inevitably ends up in some sort of authoritarian system (whether it maintains the trappings of democracy or not depends on other factors). On the other hand, any country that follows rule of law governance ends up as some sort of actual democracy sooner or later. Of course even if the West had pushed rule of law rather than "democracy" the factors that led Russia to where it is now may have ended up dominating, but some of Russia's internal reformers might have been more aware of the danger and been able to prevent it.

Re:mafia party (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261644)

Good post! It seams very insightful.., thanks. Russia deserves to be a better country, some great people once originated there..

Re:mafia party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262102)

So lots of people don't vote because 'voting doesn't change anything', except that it just did, United Russia lost their two-thirds majority that allowed them to change the constitution at will. If all the people who refused to vote actually did so, United Russia might have lost their majority. The more people who cast legitimate votes, the less effect electoral fraud has. Forget about bitching and encourage as many people as possible to cast legitimate votes the next time you get the chance. That's how you change things in a democracy, dude, through the ballot box.

Hear, hear... from someone who grew up in Russia! (1)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262104)

But, in light of "the book every American needs to read right now" on Huck's show, your should have plugged http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf [mises.org] , which dissects the point you were making perfectly!

Thanks for this and you other comments below, let's keep up the good fight (stalemate in RF today, hope for a win in USA next year).

In Liberty,

Pavel B.

Re:Hear, hear... from someone who grew up in Russi (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262176)

I did [slashdot.org] .

Agreed now! Sorry! (1)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262280)

Still, no harm in PDF link towards the start of the discussion, right?

Sorry, did not go that deep down before deciding to thank you, and provide some constructive suggestion...

Paul B.

Old Russian Computers Ran on Diesel or Wood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259664)

I read that before, anyway. How cool would that be? Hand me that axe...

Perfect Me - A Hitchhiker's Guide Novella
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6848623/Perfect_Me_By_Jason_Z._Christie

p0wned... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259692)

In Soviet Russia, the elections own you!

United Russia is comparatively moderate... (3, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259720)

Of the three major parties, United Russia (while authoritarian and vaguely socialistic) is probably the most moderate. The Liberal Democrats are led by a leader who has said he wants to completely seal the borders, institute a police state, use nuclear weapons in the Caucasus, and reconquer Eastern Europe; the Communists are the kind of Communists that venerate Stalin and long for a return to the 1930's.

Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate... (1)

thoughtlover (83833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260194)

The Liberal Democrats are led by a leader who has said he wants to completely seal the borders, institute a police state, use nuclear weapons in the Caucasus, and reconquer Eastern Europe; the Communists are the kind of Communists that venerate Stalin and long for a return to the 1930's.

OK, I give... what's the _real_ difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Communists?

Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38261278)

what's the _real_ difference between the Liberal Democrats and the Communists?

Primarily, it's that one of them is completely serious, while another one will say or do anything for the lulz (or at least no-one has devised any other rational explanation).

For example, here's what the LibDem leader had to say during the bird flu scare:

"We must force the government to stop the bird migration. We must shoot all birds, field all our men and troops... and force migratory birds to stay where they are. "

or here's on the subject of the previous elections, which I think takes the cake:

"Political impotence is finished. Today is the beginning of the orgasm. All the people, I promise you, will feel the orgasm of next year's presidential election."

This video [youtube.com] with an elaborate speech on Iraq, right on the eve of U.S. invasion, is also hilarious.

Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate... (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260296)

You have now enumerated what the parties say about themselves, which is quite different from what they actually do. United Russia, for example, is simply the party of crony cleptocracy, judging by their ten-year track record. LibDems are the party of "just for lulz", they can say one thing today, do something else tomorrow, and say something completely different from either on the next day.

Communists, though, are not Stalinists. Part of their electorate is that - mostly old (60+) people who remember the USSR fondly because they weren't living in poverty back then, and pensions were actually big enough to provide for a decent living. But that electorate has been consistently dwindling as they age and die. The new one comes from younger people who are dissatisfied with crony capitalism, and want something along the lines of democratic socialism. Their program largely matches that later group - e.g. they officially endorse small and medium private businesses, while arguing for nationalization of oil industry and other "big guys". Also, unlike commies of old, these are quite religious and socially conservative - sometimes fervently so.

look beyond the party slogans (1)

tetromino (807969) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260696)

United Russia is the party of Putin's yes-men, put in parliament to approve anything that Putin proposes. Stupendously corrupt and proud of it. A Just Russia are random leftists who make a show of being in the opposition, but are for the most part too scared to oppose Putin on important matters. Liberal Democrats are assorted wingnuts, clowns, mafiosi, and nationalists who try hard to be more Putinist than Putin himself. Communists are Soviet dinosaurs, supported by old people nostalgic for the USSR and by young people disgusted with the other major parties.

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259798)

Stash right on MS server

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/ [microsoft.com]

for the quikerest WORD EXCEL more

Re:ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/ (0)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260432)

What is all that stuff? Looks like a bunch of obsolete patches and utilities without any descriptions.

Re:ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260802)

Hitler (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38259802)

If George Bush can act like Hitler and commit election fraud, so can Vladimir Putin. As long as they only work to secure natural resources, everyone is happy.

Re:Hitler (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38259998)

Yea... He really didn't.

I know, I know, we all hate Bush. I get it. But the fact is that he won in 2000 because of the electoral college system, not because of any sort of fraud.

The Courts (1, Flamebait)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260142)

Bush won because the judges said so. That's how it officially went. The votes hadn't all been tallied yet.

Re:The Courts (5, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260390)

This election is being won by United Russia because of a large-scale electoral fraud [youtube.com] - voting for people [slashdot.org] who didn't come to vote [youtube.com] , tampering with ballots [youtube.com] , injecting prefilled ballots in ballot boxes [youtube.com] , sending people to shove in more than one ballot when they vote [youtube.com] , driving people around on buses to vote several times [youtube.com] etc.

Re:Hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38260594)

Ok, you called Godwin, so I suppose I can throw this in:
"Say, what's the difference between Hitler and George Bush?"
"Hitler got voted in."

wonder how Alyona Show will cover this (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260306)

oh wait, she can't. because she works for RT.

yes all journalists have certain instructions from their corrupt bosses. It just hurts more when its A. M. who has to kowtow.

A statistical graph demonstrating election fraud (2)

temcat (873475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38260836)

Here you can see a nice statistical graph that clearly demonstrates election fraud (in Russian; the blue curve is for United Russia):

http://podmoskovnik.livejournal.com/129632.html [livejournal.com]

Plotted here is the number of votes cast for each party as a function of voter turnout. There is only one party whose peak is abnormally widened to the right with a huge second near 100% - and this is the United Russia.

Jesus Christ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38261412)

Would you vote for someone who compares themselves to Jesus. Seriously look out for power hungry politicians who believe in pre-destiny where they are ordained by God to lead people. It never ends well for the people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>