It's not that hopeless
Joseph Dunphy
Someone was quoted by nikst, as having indicated that the Western powers
weren't going to "allow" Russia to join the ranks of the wealthy nations.
Allow ? This would seem to presuppose that there is some Western
equivalent of the old Politburo, setting policy on such things. No, there
is a somewhat disordered collection of corporations, and a number of
unmotivated governments, stumbling along, and doing little, but appeasing
the more vocal corporations. Nobody is really in control of this mess, and
noone leads.
There may be some truth to the idea that a number of the larger
corporations would prefer that new competitors don't arise anywhere - if
Russia becomes wealthier, obviously there will be a great many new
companies, that fall into this category. But why let them stop you ?
Russian industry has a problem, notorious even this far away, with
producing precision machine parts. The problem is, that the tolerances on
the machiniery used to make new machiniery, sets limits on the tolerances
achievable in the machiniery manufactured. Thus, improving those
tolerances, simply using the machiniery at home, is a process of slowly
ratcheting one's way up in the market. The problem with this approach, is
that if your competitors have already been automating (Next Supercomputer
had all of 10 employees, for example) competing with them, in terms of
price, may prove unfeasible, even if you pay your employees starvation
wages, and the rate of exchange between the ruble and the dollar, makes
your goods less expensive on the world market. Worse still, the poor
tolerances translate into unreliable, and possibly relatively dangerous,
functioning. No conspiracy here, at all, will be needed to keep
one's economy from flourishing. Simply the fact that there are already
well established competitors in the market place, may make it extremely
hard for new players to squeeze their way in, without help.
Is it hopeless ? No.
To begin with, high labor costs at home, in the Western countries, and
business difficulties from occassional absurd, and capricious regulatory
practices, well documented in a number of the journals of political
commentary back home, have resulted in the closing of relatively up to
date factories. There are companies that take the old mothballed
factories, disassemble them, and ship them overseas to third world
countries, like India. Now, noone would tend to think of India, or Mexico,
as being a serious economic threat, so noone has seen fit to do anything
to block this. If it is true, that the ruble converts very poorly into
pounds, francs, or dollars, it probably converts reasonably well into
rupees. And, given how much better the Russian infrastructure is, and how
much better trained its workforce is, than that prevalent in most of the
third world, Russia could gain far more benefit from those factories, than
could the third world countries to which their machiniery was
shipped. Thus, it might prove cost effective to go there, and purchase
some of those imported factories, even in the short run.
Granted, there'd be a bit of asking around to do. Some of these countries,
see these new factories as links to the future. But, from time to time,
mismanagement will run some of these new ventures into the ground, people
will be overwrought and discouraged, see the factories as being white
elephants, and another acquisition will be possible. And, it is not as if
money is the only thing that Russia can offer in return. For example,
widespread electrification, using hydroelectric power, something that
Russia would have no trouble helping develop, would be a big, and wildly
popular, step forward, in a lot of these places. Something that would also
be considered a link to the future, and would help in their development,
which lags far, far behind that of Russia, given that industrial
machiniery tends to be electrical. Believe it or not, it apparently has
happened, that factories have been set up, without electrical power being
available to run those factories, leaving them kind of useless.
Fine, one might say, suppose that these 1970s era factories are set up in
St. Petersburg and Murmansk (port cities, convenient for overseas trade),
putting Russia within a generation or two of current Western manufacturing
equipment. A lot of trouble saved, to say nothing of the carnage involved
during some of the steps in between - more modern factories are a LOT
safer to work in. To be truly competitive, one might point out, one needs
employees trained in the use of the new equipment.
No problem. One of the uglier bits of corporate behavior, in the last few
years, has been the practice of firing "older" (more than 50 years old)
employees, so that the employer does not have to honor the employees
pension. Or, at least, doesn't have to pay much in the way of a
pension. Plus, the employers have liked the idea of replacing the more
highly payed older employees, with younger employees. (Managerial and
professional employees, in their 40's, only 10 years younger (in may
cases), factory workers in their teens, up to their 40's). Granted, the
qulaity of work obtained, suffers, but since it is difficult to precisely
quantify that, and managerial attention spans tend to be short, this is
treated as a nonissue.
End result : there is a deep pool of highly skilled, experienced
employees, still very much alive, and active, desperate for
work, who know the equipment, who could be hired as trainers.
No joke, personnel here takes pride in its stubbornness. These layed off,
and downsized employees have, in many cases, been without work, since they
were in their 40's, 10 years ago, or more. In order to make them more
affordable (they'll already come relatively cheap), one might be sure to
include a benefit package, in lieu of some of the pay, in order to make
the conversion rate work in one's favor, for once. In effect, emphasising
how much cheaper food is in Russia, vs. America, by the dollar, so that
the new hires know that they're not going to starve. (Chicken frequently
goes for as much as $ 5 per pound in Chicago. Convert that into rubles,
noting that 1 kg is about 2.2 pounds, and prepare to have your mind blown.
You'll see why he might be worried.) Toss in profit sharing, and a pension
plan tied to the value of the ruble, and you might get some interest, and
give the new hire a real incentive to do his job as well as humanly
possible. ("Profit sharing" is the practice of giving the individual
employee some small share of the profits, in effect, paying him an amount
proportional to the company profits. Here, there is some deferred payment.
As the ruble grows stronger, and the new firm, that our trainer has worked
for, grows, and becomes more profitable, his pension comes out of the
increased profits. This might be an alternative, for a concern that can't
afford to set up a pension fund, immediately).
Once modernised industry gets a toehold in Russia, it can spread into the
interior. This will mean, that Russian goods will be competitive both in
price, and quality.
Some of the established companies will try to run interference on this,
trying to bid on factories, before russian concerns can buy them, or
politicing to prevent the sale, but they'd merely be stalling the
inevitable. There are too many places to go, to get such equipment, and
two many potential trainers to hire. Keeping that many people in line, is
hopeless.
Infrastructure.....
OK, there are geographical problems. When the Western countries set up
their industrial bases, they started by building their industrial cities
next to rivers, and sea shores, using the waterways as roadways, until
they had enough industry to build an ample system of railroads, and
roadways. Russia's rivers, tend to empty out, either into the landlocked
seas, going nowhere, or into the Arctic, not a big improvement. Long
winters, mean that the LONG roads that would be constructed in Siberia,
for example, would be snowed in frequently - and a real joy to clear,
given the length, and the relative scarcity of traffic.
But, again, is this necessarily a hopeless situation ? No.
In the Midwestern US, this problem was solved for a while, by, instead of
clearing the roads in winter (which wouldn't have been cost effective),
taking rolling equipment out, packing the snow down, and traveling the
road by sledge. Or, to be a bit more 20th century about it, one might pull
a sledge by some sort of large, modified, snowmobile. The snow bed, once
packed, can handle a surprisingly heavy load, before it starts to break
up, and can actually facilitate transportation, for medium sized loads.
Obviously, starting and stopping takes some time, just like for a train,
and for the same reason - inadequate traction, for rapid acceleration.
So, some sort of warning whistle would be called for, and, of course, very
flat, straight, roadways. But, I understand, the topography would favor
this, in many places.
As for the arctic...there is some talk, from time to time, of developing
automated subs, for cargo transport, and this would seem to be an ideal
place to put them into use. Ship the cargo under the ice, locating
port cities on the Arctic coast. Not the greatest possible place to live,
granted, but at least, there might be opportunities. It beats starving to
death, in Vladivostok. the actual port facilities, could be completely
enclosed, almost - a large, shedlike structure, reaching out over the
water, which the cargo sub would be guided to surface under. Thus,
shielding the employees from much of the climate. The water itself, under
the ice, will, of course, can't be that far below 0 celsius, so the
compartment could be warmed to that, without excessive fogging resulting.
The point here, is that a lot of the economic problems, and engineering
problems involved, either have been, or are being, worked out, and that
resignation to the present situation is unnecessary. To find the factories
to buy, could be done in months. To find the trainers, in a year.
To build the subs, and those snow trucks, let's give ourselves an absurd
amount of time, and mention that the engineers could develop them in a
decade, clearly. As for where you would find the researchers to do so -
let us note that the same loving people who threw their more experienced
employees out into the street, were also good enough to set a policy
absolutely barring those who hadn't yet seen 2 - 5 years of employment,
from professional work, and stuck to it for some years. Meaning, that
there are a lot of highly trained and talented young researchers out
there, eager to work for whoever would hire them.
On a sadder note, for Russia, the notion the export of scientific talent,
will raise capital, is sadly mistaken. Coals to Newcastle, as the saying
in English goes. You'd be exporting, to an exporter. The commentary about
the "deficiencies in Euro-American culture", betrayed a willingness to
take ideological commentary on line, all too seriously. Scientists and
engineers are numerous in America, and the west, and, oh, by the way, the
vast majority of them are European, or Euro-American. Your exported
people, would be hitting a brutal professional job market. Granted, one
that is made artificially so, but one that really isn't unusually depleted
of applicants, any way. The commentary to the contrary, has been reaching
you from some of the Anti-Western crazies, out in the Far East, and merits
the same degree of serious attention, usually showed to the trolls on
line.
But, really, I would argue that things are not as hopeless as they might
seem. Bad, but not hopeless, unless people let themselves become convinced
that they are. Did anyone in Moscow, ever believe that they'd live to see
democracy, at home ?
Alexandr Stepanov
Joseph Dunphy wrote:
>
> Someone was quoted by nikst, as having indicated that the Western powers
> weren't going to "allow" Russia to join the ranks of the wealthy nations.
>
> Allow ? This would seem to presuppose that there is some Western
> equivalent of the old Politburo, setting policy on such things.
Yes, read more abot this Politburo in Los Angeles Times Sept 10 1997.
"A major Democratic Party donor met secretly in
1995 with top aides to Russian President Boris N.
Yeltsin and discussed funneling $100 million into
Yeltsin's 1996 presidential campaign in exchange
for Russian support of his... "
> Did anyone in Moscow, ever believe that they'd live to see
> democracy, at home ?
I fear still quite few believe "they'd live to see democracy at home".
Much fewer than 10 years ago for sure.
Alex.
Igor Fedchenia
Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
>
> Joseph Dunphy wrote:
> >
> > Someone was quoted by nikst, as having indicated that the Western powers
> > weren't going to "allow" Russia to join the ranks of the wealthy nations.
> >
> > Allow ? This would seem to presuppose that there is some Western
> > equivalent of the old Politburo, setting policy on such things.
>
>
> "A major Democratic Party donor met secretly in
> 1995 with top aides to Russian President Boris N.
> Yeltsin and discussed funneling $100 million into
> Yeltsin's 1996 presidential campaign in exchange
> for Russian support of his... "
>
> > democracy, at home ?
>
> Much fewer than 10 years ago for sure.
>
> Alex.
Alex, Original article is not about bribes to russian
politicians. Recently republicans also have been acused
of edmitting chineese money for election compain. It doen't
mean that China is against or try to prevent the USA to be
a prosperous country. In fact nobody cares ...
--
Igor
Alx
Igor Fedchenia wrote:
>
> Alex, Original article is not about bribes to russian
> politicians. Recently republicans also have been acused
> of edmitting chineese money for election compain. It doen't
> mean that China is against or try to prevent the USA to be
> a prosperous country. In fact nobody cares ...
> --
> Igor
Actually, it was the democrats who were accused of that. But this
doesn't matter for you in Germany.
Anyway, for the main point: I admit that some forces in the West and
elswhere don't want Russia to lift itself out of its current state.
However I am amazed at the apparent belief of many in Russia that these
forces are able to do that. Do they suppose that currenly prosperous
nations got this way because somebody allowed them to? Russia can
become strong and prosperous all by itself. More than that: it *will*
become strong and prosperous. Why? Because it wants to.
Joseph Dunphy
Joseph Dunphy (st...@typhoon.xnet.com) wrote:
: But, it was disheartening, to see such a loss of spirit. It seems
: that some, would give up, before even trying to fix things.
And, a little worrisome.
No nation is a monolith. Its actions are the reflection of the outcome
of the struggles taking place within it.
Back during the coup attempt, it escaped noone's attention that when
the tanks rolled in, the demonstrators refused to back down, the
soldiers refused to shoot them, and the officers refused to order them
to do so. This all, took very steady nerves, on the part of those
refusing to submit.
If people get the feeling, that there is nothing that they can do, to
make their lives better, will they feel motivated to show such a
degree of determination, again, if need be ? Or will they just give up,
feeling that they have no stake, in the outcome of the battle ?
What good does the vote do, to someone who has no food ?
Joseph Dunphy
Alx (ti...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: However I am amazed at the apparent belief of many in Russia that these
: forces are able to do that. Do they suppose that currenly prosperous
: nations got this way because somebody allowed them to? Russia can
: become strong and prosperous all by itself. More than that: it *will*
: become strong and prosperous. Why? Because it wants to.
Thank you, sir.
There has been a mood of defeatism, I've seen occasionally on
this group, that I've had trouble understanding. The notion, that
a handful of corporations, can keep Russia from purchasing hardware,
which no government in the Western world wants to keep it from
obtaining, for peaceful purposes.
It is absurd. Even when the US government itself was hostile, it
couldn't keep Russia from obtaining military hardware, which was
under strict government export controls. Getting past this sort of
obstructism, would be much easier. Small, private companies do so,
all of the time. Need I repeat, that the Western governments are now
pro-Russia, and want to see Russia grow ? It clearly is not in the
best interests of the US, for a friendly government to be
destabilised, and a lengthy economic depression, historically, tends
to do that. Human nature - hungry people don't tend to stay patient
either with those in power, or with the outside world.
For that matter, is it prudent, to leave a friendly country, in a
weakened state ? Worse case scenario. Thirty years down the road.
Russia disintegrates. A growing, and stable, China expands at Russian
expense, picking off the small successor states, one at a time.
Eventually bringing the Chinese sphere of hegemony up to the borders
of NATO, and giving Beijing one large nuclear deterrent.
China, very clearly, is no friend of any European society. It should
be clear to all, that the US would not want to see this happen. When
one hears stories, of regions acting almost independently of Moscow,
to a degree unthinkable in most federal republics, and of Russian
naval personnel starving to death, because the government can't find
the money to pay its inductees, concern arises.
Joseph Dunphy
Joseph Dunphy (st...@typhoon.xnet.com) wrote:
: As for the arctic...there is some talk, from time to time, of developing
: automated subs, for cargo transport, and this would seem to be an ideal
: place to put them into use. Ship the cargo under the ice, locating
: port cities on the Arctic coast. Not the greatest possible place to live,
: granted, but at least, there might be opportunities. It beats starving to
: death, in Vladivostok. the actual port facilities, could be completely
: enclosed, almost - a large, shedlike structure, reaching out over the
: water, which the cargo sub would be guided to surface under. Thus,
A point of engineering, which should be corrected...
Obviously, what I should have said, is that one would dig a long,
deep slip inland, from the coast, and build the structure inland,
over the slip (a straight, artificial channel), the walls of
the structure built over the end of the slip, reaching down some
distance into the water, so that the heat loss, due to the water, is
reduced. The water getting warmer, in the Arctic Ocean, as one goes
deeper. Also, since the water would be fairly still, some temperature
gradient could be built up.
Were one to simply extend metal walls, potentially over ice, they
might be sheared away by the movement of that same ice. (I'd like to
thank those reading, for the tact shown, in not throwing this
obvious oversight back at me.) Since the water in the slip, has
nowhere to go, the flow of water powering the ice shear, wouldn't be
present, of course.
Throw in some heat lamps in the work area, directed away from the
water, insulate the walls of the shed, and you might end up with work
conditions no worse, than those faced by Western European
dockworkers, during the winter (and much more pleasant, than those of
their counterparts in the US).
As for the automated subs....
I recall that the old Soviet subs were noted for their strong hulls,
which should translate into a good, deep, crush depth. Which is just
what one would need. (Given the long, slow, trip, under the ice, one
can see why an unmanned sub would be preferred. Obviously, a
nonnuclear one. Not necessarily so far out to sea, though). I believe
that MIT has been working on automatons, like the "beast" of a few
decades back, that can navigate on their own. So, armed with a
detailed map of the floor of the Arctic, which the Russian government
probably has (if not, NOAA in Washington could provide one), the sub
could find its way, along. If it stays within Russian
territorial waters, messy legal issues involving salvage rights
don't come up, because those rights, are set by the laws written by
the Duma, aren't they ? Which, one would hope, would write them
with Russian interests in mind. Outside, the question would come up,
whether or not an unmanned sub, would legally be considered a
"derelict".
Approaching the slip, before encountering the thermal gradient caused
by the heating of the water, near the shed, the sub could, perhaps,
be communicated with using a modified sonar pulse, to guide it in.
The sub comes into within range of the station, sends out a sequence
of pulses, identifying itself, and waits for a sequence of pulses in
return, saying "come in, sub number....". Off hand, though, I'm not
sure of the baud rate achievable, or of the nature of signal
distortion underwater, so I'd have to do a fair amount of study on
the question, before suggesting a specific communication scheme.
(I'm studying Electrical Engineering and Mathematics (Communications
and Solid State Engineering being particular areas of interest), at
the graduate level, hence the interest, on my part, in this
particular question.)
: shielding the employees from much of the climate. The water itself, under
Alexandr Stepanov
Joseph Dunphy wrote:
>
> Back during the coup attempt, it escaped noone's attention that when
> the tanks rolled in, the demonstrators refused to back down, the
> soldiers refused to shoot them, and the officers refused to order them
> to do so. This all, took very steady nerves, on the part of those
> refusing to submit.
>
There was no coup attempt. Otherwise Yeltsin and whole his gang were
internated BEFORE hand as 5 000 members of Poland Solidarity were
internated night before Jaruzelsky's crackdown. And for sure Yeltsin
would not have communications (what we all had seen 1993, it is also a
great example what soldiers and officers do to the people when they
really do have an order to kill).
At 1991 it was an attempt to introduce state of emergency without a
solid legal basis not a coup at all, and Yeltsin knew this all the time
and didn't mind. What happened later was simple bluff Yeltsin used to
seize the power. Never mind destruction of Russia. Yeltsin as every
tyrant cares only of his power.
> If people get the feeling, that there is nothing that they can do, to
> make their lives better, will they feel motivated to show such a
> degree of determination, again, if need be ? Or will they just give > up, feeling that they have no stake, in the outcome of the battle ?
You are totally wrong. People who have something at stake do not go to
the streets. They are middle class - the base of stability. Only those
who have nothing to loose or those who will not loose what ever outcome
should be go to the streets. At 1991 quite many people tought they have
nothing to loose. They did not believe they could loose jobs, health
care, housing, safety, carriere opportunities, motherland. Do not tell
me that this attitude has nothing to do with American propaganda.
New American ambassador to Belarus stated American policy "stop going
backwards on THE ROAD TO NOWHERE." So the US want Belarus and Russia to
go only forward on this road and to do so as fast and steady as
possible. The same is an order they give to the "russian president" they
bought. Belarussian president denyed 5$ million he was offered. So you
see the result - Belarus is "going backward on the road to nowhere"
while Russia goes forward on this road. If we assume equal desire of
peoples to survive and equal outside pressure to kill them we could see
that it is orientation of president what makes difference. Should I hope
that Russians will rebel? Yeltsin has a great sequrity machine
constructed by Stalin and greatly developed by Yeltsin lately to befit
tyranny. US sequrity services also work to protect Yeltsin's tyranny.
What to the "coup" attempt and people defending freedom - relax.
Latest polls show that if "coup" had place today its supporters would by
far outnumber those who are against. But those indifferent outnumber
both former groups together 3:1. Didn't I wrote that 10 years ago many
people believed they would see democracy at home?
> What good does the vote do, to someone who has no food ?
You speak as an enemy of "young Russian democracy" and it's American
bosses.
Alex.
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <5vv6e4$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Igor Fedchenia wrote:
> >
> > Alex, Original article is not about bribes to russian
> > politicians. Recently republicans also have been acused
> > of edmitting chineese money for election compain. It doen't
> > mean that China is against or try to prevent the USA to be
> > a prosperous country. In fact nobody cares ...
> > --
> > Igor
>
> Actually, it was the democrats who were accused of that. But this
> doesn't matter for you in Germany.
> Anyway, for the main point: I admit that some forces in the West and
> elswhere don't want Russia to lift itself out of its current state.
> forces are able to do that.
Defeatism, aka apathy, is what keeps all brutal regimes afloat.
> Do they suppose that currenly prosperous
> nations got this way because somebody allowed them to? Russia can
> become strong and prosperous all by itself. More than that: it *will*
> become strong and prosperous. Why? Because it wants to.
It would be nice if this would happen, but the decision is not in the
hands of the people. Russians can vote 'do potere pulsa' but they exert
no economic control over their lives. Russia will become prosperous only
if the cabal of robber barrons lets it. For now it is in their interest
to keep the people poor and quiet (ie busy struggling to survive with no
time for the leisure activity of politics like in the 80's).
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
You absolutly right Alexandr. Yeltsin, with his American advisers are
moving Russian no where fast. I know that American media sending crap on
our brains. They tell how wonderfull and democratic Russia is. In fact
in polls only 10 or so per cent Russian said that Russia is democraty.
They also said that it is not capitalism ether. They also fell that they
can not do anything about it. Yeltsin and his gang represent 1000 or so
businessmen and this is it. HUGE mistakes had been made in reforms, that
was suprisingly had been designed by US. This mistakes is the main
reasom why Russian people is so poor. Yeltsin is not democrat he is
totalitarian. He control main media, he spend almost a $1 billion for
his compaign from taxpayer money. In fact if he did not had chance to
win election, HE WOULD SIMPLY CALL OFF ELECTIONS. It was even told by US
media. Americans like him because he help them to make money. There is
forces that show that some fUSSR republic want to joint some form of
Union again. Americans try to pay them off, like Ukrain. Wonder why?
Because it means rise of Russia and Union as powerfull state. Americans
does not like it. Of couse they happy with this situation. I believe
that anybody, even Communist would be better if they win next elections.
I don't want Zhirinovsky to win through. It is clear that this guy
should be in mental institution. I think Lebed, Luzhkov, or even Zuganov
MUST win, MUST win next time or soon we would be right there, with
developing countries of Africa.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Timothy Watson
Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> internated night before Jaruzelsky's crackdown. And for sure Yeltsin
> would not have communications (what we all had seen 1993, it is also a
Gorbachev was detained
> great example what soldiers and officers do to the people when they
> really do have an order to kill).
And some troops were ordered to take over some building, and disobeyed
(there was a split of loyalties in the armed forces)
--
________________________________________________________________________
T i m o t h y W a t s o n
tmwa...@umich.junkmail.edu (get rid of junkmail!)
__/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down
Alx
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> In article <5vv6e4$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > Anyway, for the main point: I admit that some forces in the West and
> > elswhere don't want Russia to lift itself out of its current state.
> > However I am amazed at the apparent belief of many in Russia that these
> > forces are able to do that.
>
> Defeatism, aka apathy, is what keeps all brutal regimes afloat.
I understand this is a snipe directed at the Yeltsin's goverment. I
don't
think his goverment deliberately speading apathy or being particulary
brutal
by Russian standards (Chechen war aside), but I don't want to get into
this
argument. I am just tired of the constant whining by many Russian
intelectual.
"They will not allow us" is one theme. "We are so far behind, we'll
never
catch up" is another. It is *always* possible to catch up. Otherwise the
most
advanced countries in the world right now would be Egypt and Iraq.
>
> > Do they suppose that currenly prosperous
> > nations got this way because somebody allowed them to? Russia can
> > become strong and prosperous all by itself. More than that: it *will*
> > become strong and prosperous. Why? Because it wants to.
>
> It would be nice if this would happen, but the decision is not in the
> hands of the people. Russians can vote 'do potere pulsa' but they exert
> no economic control over their lives. Russia will become prosperous only
> if the cabal of robber barrons lets it. For now it is in their interest
> to keep the people poor and quiet (ie busy struggling to survive with no
> time for the leisure activity of politics like in the 80's).
>
I never said Russia will grow rich because it will vote 'right' people
into
power. Nor a goverment or 'robber barons' can allow it to become
prosperous.
They don't have that power, whatever they think they control. Russia's
becoming prosperous will be a natural result of each person working to
improve his personal situation. This is what Russian people want -
normal
life. There is nothing impossible about this. As they say in Russia "ne
nado
borot'sya za chistotu, nado podmetat'" (Don't fight for clean [floor],
just
sweep it). Politics is fighting for clean floors. You are right, that
won't
work. Living your life trying to improve it any way you can is sweeping
your
floor. When enough floors get sweeped, prosperity will come.
Alexandr Stepanov
Timothy Watson wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> > internated night before Jaruzelsky's crackdown. And for sure Yeltsin
> > would not have communications (what we all had seen 1993, it is also a
>
> Gorbachev was detained
Hi, Timothy. I like you very much, but one question. Do you read in
Russian? If the answer is "yes" I will send you reference. If "No",
pardon me - our Westwrn friends do not like to give up Yeltsin yet.
Gorbachev was behind all this, and he preferred to stay away to preserve
his "liberal" image. So called "coup leaders" were not allowed to order
military open fire. They did not even bring military to the Moscow
streets until Yeltsin's bluff become so evident. Even then they brought
troops to the city streets only to frighten Yeltsin, not to beat him in
to submission (as it was done in 1993). It was their turn to bluff.
Their powers were so limited that they fleed to "detained" Gorbachev
instead of doing anithing themselves.
It is a strange way of detainement when detained person has 30
bodyguards and has unlimited acess to communications (nuclear suitcase
was with Gorbachev all the time and this device is much more difficult
to dicsconnect then regular satellite phone.)
Even if you believe Gorbachev was really detained why he was the only
one? Why Jarizelskiy detained 5 000 Solidarity activists in a single
night while "coup leaders" cared only to detain one man? Why nobody from
Yeltsin's entourage was detained if it was really a coup against
Yeltsin? I do not know if you have been in Moscow that time. If not
believe me it was much more like gala then like a coup attempt.
Everibody who have seen this feel it was a farce not a tragedy.
Alex.
Alexandr Stepanov
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
>
> You absolutly right Alexandr. Yeltsin, with his American advisers are
> moving Russian no where fast. I know that American media sending crap on
> our brains. They tell how wonderfull and democratic Russia is. In fact
> in polls only 10 or so per cent Russian said that Russia is democraty.
In fact such a number (10%) is a result of misinterpretation of the term
"Democracy". Only 1% of Russians believe that power in Russia belongs to
the people. That is the real number of those who believe Russia is
democracy.
After 1991 it was pure tyranny with the only purpose of a state to keep
Yeltsin's power. Now after criminals got control over industry and are
getting control over sequrity services (Chubajs actively intoduces there
former KGB officers who served in banks recently) Yeltsin doesn't have
any power and merely tries to appease bankers. Today Russia might be
only defined as pure oligarchy.
Alex.
Alexandr Stepanov
Alx wrote:
> Russia's
> becoming prosperous will be a natural result of each person working to
> improve his personal situation. This is what Russian people want -
> normal
> life. There is nothing impossible about this.
Pretty popular liberal lie. Actually one of the most popular.
I do not only understand are you misleaded or you try to mislead others.
Did the war in Chechnja last 21 month because Russian soldiers fought
bad? Or might be it ended bercause they all started to fight great?
Or we will stop bullshitting and acknowledge that something happened in
the government?
What to the cruelty of Yeltsin here is a reference:
http://www.bizlink.ru/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/ar/c/koi/data/zavtra/1/nom198/15korjakov.html
Timothy Watson
Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> Timothy Watson wrote:
> >
> > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> > > internated night before Jaruzelsky's crackdown. And for sure Yeltsin
> > > would not have communications (what we all had seen 1993, it is also a
> >
> > Gorbachev was detained
>
> Hi, Timothy. I like you very much, but one question. Do you read in
> Russian? If the answer is "yes" I will send you reference. If "No",
> pardon me - our Westwrn friends do not like to give up Yeltsin yet.
I knew a little Russian badly once, but have pretty much forgotten it.
Alx
Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
>
> Alx wrote:
>
> > Russia's
> > becoming prosperous will be a natural result of each person working to
> > improve his personal situation. This is what Russian people want -
> > normal
> > life. There is nothing impossible about this.
>
> Pretty popular liberal lie. Actually one of the most popular.
>
> I do not only understand are you misleaded or you try to mislead others.
> Did the war in Chechnja last 21 month because Russian soldiers fought
> bad? Or might be it ended bercause they all started to fight great?
>
> Or we will stop bullshitting and acknowledge that something happened in
> the government?
This is non sequitur. I gather the poster is unhappy about my remarks
but I don't undetstand what it is he is trying to say. Can somebody
explain? The link doesn't help either.
Alx
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> In article <6077od$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Alx says...
> >
> >I am just tired of the constant whining by many Russian
> >"They will not allow us" is one theme. "We are so far behind, we'll
> >never
> >catch up" is another. It is *always* possible to catch up. Otherwise the
> >most
> >advanced countries in the world right now would be Egypt and Iraq.
>
> hierarchy, be it communist or capitalist, exerts control over society.
> This includes limiting individual political and economic freedoms
> by 'legitimate' means or by extra-legal coercion. It is silly to talk
> about individuals controlling their own fate 100%, society exerts a
> significant influence. I really don't see why so many people have a
> hard time grasping this, it is obvious.
>
No individual in no society is 100% free. It is amazing what General
Motors can do to a person even now, not to say 50 years ago. Examples
of Singapore and others show that economic prosperity has little to
do with political freedom. Politically, Russians will be more free
than at any time before in history, but less free that in the 'free
world' The goverment will stay as corrupt as ever. This hurts the
development but doesn't prevent it.
> >I never said Russia will grow rich because it will vote 'right' people
> >into
> >power. Nor a goverment or 'robber barons' can allow it to become
> >prosperous.
> >They don't have that power, whatever they think they control.
>
> But they DO have power. The life of the average Russian is constrained
> by their activity and machinations.
I don't really believe that life of a person in Kaluga is that much
influenced by the machinations of, say, Berezovsky.
> It implicitly assumes you are independent of
> your social and economic environment. If it were true the billions of
> people slaving away in 3rd world capitalist paradises would all be
> prosperous.
>
You mean China, India, Africa? These may be paradises, but they are not
exactly capitalist. Those 3rd world countries that had the stomach
to implement real capitalism (or had it forced on them) had their
standards of life improve dramatically.
I don't like capitalism in a least. It's all what is being said about
it. But it's the only system with the results to show for it. If
Russia will again try to implement something special, never seen before,
it is going to be stuck in another hole for another 80 years.
> The West has sold Russia on this lassiez-faire shite, while hypocritically
> employing government regulation and intervention to maintain its own
> prosperity.
Being a real market economy the West has all kinds of shit to sell.
Russian intellectual chose to buy this particular kind and now are
whining.
By the way, do you really believe that the reason for Russian
economy's troubles is the lack of goverment regulations and
interventions?
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <3427D1...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> What to the cruelty of Yeltsin here is a reference:
>
> http://www.bizlink.ru/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/ar/c/koi/data/zavtra/1/nom198/15korjakov.html
Alex you are biased. It looks like you are not using facts to build a
theory, but carefully select information, supporting your long-ago formed
and mature set of ideas. This is plain ridiculous - to refer to
Korzhakov's book in that sort of an argument. Next time you'll be quoting
London SUN or other tabloids! If you need to prove that Yeltsin is not
exactly what the West normally considers a truly democratic ruler, or
that Russian political system is all corrupt - you're preaching to the
converted, believe me it's no secret! But what is important - you seem to
overlook everything else. So, according to you, all current Russian
misery is to do with Yeltsin and his "regime" (who is regime, by the way?
Chubais, Nemtsov, who else? Is that all?), and to a slightly lesser
extent - with the same "treacherous" West you're appealing to. Let's
replace this shop assistant with another - will be better! That's what I
call biased, although very much of what you're saying is actually true.
Lo
Alexandr Stepanov
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> In article <3427D1...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
> as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > What to the cruelty of Yeltsin here is a reference:
> >
> > http://www.bizlink.ru/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/ar/c/koi/data/zavtra/1/nom198/15korjakov.html
>
> Alex you are biased. It looks like you are not using facts to build a
> theory, but carefully select information, supporting your long-ago formed
> and mature set of ideas.
I guess some one had alredy selected which information is to be
available for me.
> This is plain ridiculous - to refer to
> Korzhakov's book in that sort of an argument. Next time you'll be quoting
> London SUN or other tabloids!
Sure any book about Yeltsin is a tabloid because the subject himself is
of that sort.
> If you need to prove that Yeltsin is not
> exactly what the West normally considers a truly democratic ruler, or
> that Russian political system is all corrupt - you're preaching to the
> converted, believe me it's no secret! But what is important - you seem > to overlook everything else. So, according to you, all current Russian
> misery is to do with Yeltsin and his "regime" (who is regime, by the way?
> Chubais, Nemtsov, who else? Is that all?), and to a slightly lesser
> extent - with the same "treacherous" West you're appealing to. Let's
> replace this shop assistant with another - will be better! That's what I
> call biased, although very much of what you're saying is actually true.
I do not try to prove platitudes. West has much more information and
sure it is an open secret who Yeltsin really is. I do not like that West
lies to the people.
One of those lies is "work for youself and everithing will be fine".
It is not an argument but a cue for the reason that it is designed not
to focus on the problems but to distract and mislead. Russians who work
on two or three jobs for 16 hours a day do work for themselves but they
are still advised to do so rather than make use of they rights.
We swept communists because it limited our right to rule our country.
Why we are supposed now to surrender our rights? Because our country was
destroyed? Because much of it is now at war? Because sallary is not
payed for many month. Or because current regime satisfies the West.
Latest is the only meaningfull suggestion. So we have:
1. the lie,
2. this lie is for purpose, and
3. the purpose has nothing to do with our interests (such as jobs,
sallaries, education, housing helth care, low crime rate and so on)
but rather it is in interests of the West - destruction of real
competitor, geting control over its resurses for cheap.
Democracy is just about people's right to change "the shop assistant".
Not to slave 16 hours a day for pennies. The usefullness of such a
change could be questioned and should be in fact. Given that we had no
other expirience after collaps of communism, but Yeltsin's regime it is
hard to make comparisons. But there are few. Lebed stopped the war in
Chechnja saving thousands of lifes, and Lujkov saved Moscow from
Chubajse's robbery. (even though Lujkov is a suspicious figure).
Probably the better comparison is New Economic Policy of communists. Du
you remember "Gold calf"? How Ostap sold a file to Korejko for 1 million
of rubles. Imagine somebody does this to Berezovskij or Lerner or
Chubajs. I gues they will offer such a guy a position of comedician.
That illustrates how criminal is todays regime and how much more
civilised was capitalism during communists rule.
Alex.
Alx
Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
>
>
> Actually "America is so prosperous because ..." is another favorite
> liberal lie. One more short circuit for our toughts. Everibody including
> communists use it putting what ever they want in place of period. It is
> even more potent then "work for yourself and do not touch the government
> (we like)". Because the former beats the later if you put "People have
> the right to rebel against a tyrant" instead of the period.
People have the right to rebel in US? Really? Did you know that each of
the cities on the East Coast has an armory smack in the middle of it?
(in New York it is in the Central Park). Do you know the reason they
put them there?
>
> Alex.
Alx
Alx
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> In article <609si3$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Alx says...
> >
> >>
>
> The fact that rhe Russian government is a tool of the tycoons and the
> new capitalist nomenklatura is the main reason Russia has degenerated into
> a 3rd World country.
You mean Russian goverment is even more of a tool than Mexican
goverment?
Not bloody likely. Yet Mexico grows at 8.8%. As for Russia being a 3rd
world
country...not so. Russia is a developed country that is going through a
serious crisis. There is a difference.
>
> >I don't really believe that life of a person in Kaluga is that much
> >influenced by the machinations of, say, Berezovsky.
>
> Unless everyone can be self-employed, they are dependent on some company
> to survive. Considering the near non-existence of small business, in
> complete contrast to the West where it can employ up to 85% of the workforce,
> the fate of Russians is disproportionately governed by the performance
> of a few corporations and the banksters that control them. Even if the income
> of only a small percentage of Russians is provided for by these enterprises,
> this is all that there is to 'trickle down' throughout the rest of the economy.
However, in US (and to even larger degree in other Western countries)
large
companies is the engine of the economy. Most of the small businesses
either
sell something to the big companies or to their employees or are selling
something produced by these companies. If a big company goes down so do
many
of the small ones. That's the reason they are not able to close a single
military base, even the one in Brooklyn, NY.
>
> One of the biggest obstacles to true development in Russia is the corruption
> of banks. Without a viable credit system Western style capitalism cannot
> exist in Russia.
>
Situation not unique to Russia. This is a major reason of the currency
crisis
in SE Asia or even financial near-crisis in (of all countries) Japan.
>
> >I don't like capitalism in a least. It's all what is being said about
> >it. But it's the only system with the results to show for it. If
> >Russia will again try to implement something special, never seen before,
> >it is going to be stuck in another hole for another 80 years.
>
> No. Russia has to do what the West is doing to be like the West (within
> certain realistic constraints). It is currently imitating Mobuto's Zaiire.
>
You say no, then proceed to say what I am saying, in other words.
> >
> >> The West has sold Russia on this lassiez-faire shite, while hypocritically
> >> employing government regulation and intervention to maintain its own
> >> prosperity.
> >
> >Being a real market economy the West has all kinds of shit to sell.
> >Russian intellectual chose to buy this particular kind and now are
> >whining.
>
> True.
>
> >By the way, do you really believe that the reason for Russian
> >economy's troubles is the lack of goverment regulations and
> >interventions?
>
> Russia needs a Theodore Roosevelt and not a Mobutu (Yeltsin) to get it up
> on its feet. Somebody who will stand up to the tycoons and understands the
> vital (but not overwhelming) role of government in the economy and society.
> Currently there is no true Western style regulation of the Russian economy.
> There is no functioning legal and regulatory infrastructure but corruption
> instead. Russia is in a DEEP HOLE. Again Western academics (monetarists)
> spew some crap about self-regulation. But they are cluesless 'empiricists'
> who do not have a working theory of Western economies. Sachs considers Bolivia
> to be a successful example of his theories. Gee. Russia looks like Bolivia
> now. Such progress. Not!
TR came after decades of president nobody remembers now that were the
tools
of the robber barons. Russia is only in the beginning of a long path.
But
it seem to move quite fast.
Alexandr Stepanov
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> In article <609si3$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Alx says...
> >Being a real market economy the West has all kinds of shit to sell.
> >Russian intellectual chose to buy this particular kind and now are
> >whining.
>
> True.
Wrong. My father has to earn his living by repiring all kinds of Western
and Eastern (even more) electronic shit. Altough he would be happy to
use Russian electronic components he can not do so. Guess why? The
latest Russia made transistor he ever seen was manufactured 1991. As
soon as Russia was destroyed it lost independence and closed high tech
plants under Western pressure. Recently Chernomirdin sold Russian
strategic stockpiles of purified Silicon, Indium, Germanium, making
restart of Russian facilities even more unprobable. Do not say Russian
components are worse, or they are more expensive. Just opposite is true.
Most probably shutting down this facilities was a condition of one of
the loans West uses to keep tyranny in power. Sure Russian industry
worth nothing for puppets - they love money and they prefere cash. Such
atavisms of communism as high tech industry should be destroyed together
with education, helth care and so on.
In order to follow American way start it from Columbus. At least you
will be sure the start is right.
Actually "America is so prosperous because ..." is another favorite
liberal lie. One more short circuit for our toughts. Everibody including
communists use it putting what ever they want in place of period. It is
even more potent then "work for yourself and do not touch the government
(we like)". Because the former beats the later if you put "People have
the right to rebel against a tyrant" instead of the period. It also
beats quite malignant "to seize and to divide"(Bulgakov) if you mere
mention Roosevelt's demand to American capitalists to give up half of
what they have at the days of Great Depression.
In fact the US were lucky. Those guys had nowhere to escape. There was a
hunting season for them in Europe at the moment.
Alex.
Joseph Dunphy
Uh, look guys......
Russia has the land, it has the resources, and it has a lot of
qualified people who'd like to help it, none of whom are named
Jeffrey Sachs, or believe in "shock treatment".
But the will has to be there, to act, and we can't give that to
you. I don't know, whether or not it is there, but I'd like to
think that it is. One way or another, though, you'll let us know,
and all that the rest of us can do, is respect your call.
But, it's hard not to wonder. With practically unlimited frontier,
Russia seemes to be devoid of homsesteaders, and filled with
perenially unemployed urban residents. In a small country, with
only a little land, like Peru, one could easily understand this,
but in this context, it leaves many confused. Yes, the frontier
is bound to be a little violent, but Moscow isn't ?
Someone wants quick opportunity, and some venture capital - there
you go. Trap furs, pan for gold, DO SOMETHING, if only to keep
moving, if for no other reason. Just giving up, doesn't accomplish
anything.
Oh, someone wrote in, on this thread, to say "don't say that
Russian parts are inferior quality, or high priced. My father
imports...". This person must be an undergraduate student, to
think that anyone will be impressed by this sort of argument.
Son, you're related to someone who buys from those who manufacture
the inventions, of the people who design chips. I am one of those
people. I know considerably more than you do, about this industry,
and I have to question your maturity at the very least, if not
your sanity, if you think that being related to someone
tangentially connected to the manufacturing process, makes you
more of an "authority" on the subject, than someone who is
actually
trained in the field. Please run off, and play somewhere else. The
adults are talking, now. So be quiet, and stop embarassing
yourself. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the tolerances and
reliability of Russian electronic components aren't up to NATO
standards, Soviet engineers having compensated for this, as far
as practical, by improved circuit design, reducing the
"sensitivity" of a circuit. (This, actually, is good. It refers to
the process of designing a circuit, so that a given
percentage error in each of the
component parameters, introduces less of an error in the output of
a circuit.) This much is a matter of record, in the literature.
Though, the parts that I had been referring to, were machine
parts. As in, moving parts.
Now, if you all will excuse me, I have work to do. It's been fun,
but this has been too much of a distraction.
Joseph Dunphy (st...@typhoon.xnet.com) wrote:
: Joseph Dunphy (st...@typhoon.xnet.com) wrote:
:
: : As for the arctic...there is some talk, from time to time, of developing
: : automated subs, for cargo transport, and this would seem to be an ideal
: : place to put them into use. Ship the cargo under the ice, locating
: : port cities on the Arctic coast. Not the greatest possible place to live,
: : granted, but at least, there might be opportunities. It beats starving to
: : death, in Vladivostok. the actual port facilities, could be completely
: : enclosed, almost - a large, shedlike structure, reaching out over the
: : water, which the cargo sub would be guided to surface under. Thus,
:
:
: A point of engineering, which should be corrected...
: return, saying "come in, sub number....". Off hand, though, I'm not
: sure of the baud rate achievable, or of the nature of signal
: distortion underwater, so I'd have to do a fair amount of study on
: the question, before suggesting a specific communication scheme.
:
: (I'm studying Electrical Engineering and Mathematics (Communications
: and Solid State Engineering being particular areas of interest), at
: the graduate level, hence the interest, on my part, in this
: particular question.)
:
:
: : shielding the employees from much of the climate. The water itself, under
lo...@compuserve.com
In article ,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
> I do not try to prove platitudes. West has much more information and
> sure it is an open secret who Yeltsin really is. I do not like that West
> lies to the people.
>
> One of those lies is "work for youself and everithing will be fine".
> It is not an argument but a cue for the reason that it is designed not
> to focus on the problems but to distract and mislead. Russians who work
> on two or three jobs for 16 hours a day do work for themselves but they
> are still advised to do so rather than make use of they rights.
>
> We swept communists because it limited our right to rule our country.
> Why we are supposed now to surrender our rights?
Alex your pathos somehow fails to convince me. You say working hard is
getting you nowhere in Russia. Come on! Believe me, I know what I'm
talking about. Yes, corruption is everywhere, yes, if you decide to start
your own business, you're supposed to bathe in bribery, but still this
society is more beneficial for those with ideas and initiative, than the
old communist one. In the old days you'd get your 120 rub/month, 1
bedroom flat and be happy - to travel to the States you were very often
required to signup to the KGB - again, I know what I'm talking about. Is
the current Russian society just? By no means so! Is it better than the
old one? I don't know - depends on the point of view. Does it encourages
initiative more than the old one? Yes. That's the crux of the matter. As
for corruption, tyranny, etc. they are not only in the heads of the
rulers - they are everywhere. Sweep Yeltsin - you'll as sure as hell get
another one. Try to learn at least by your own mistakes. Russia's
overthrown Politbureau - by far more hypocritical and mean than Yeltsin
and Co, or maybe their principles do not actually differ - who cares? and
got Yeltsin. Overthrow him - more bloodshed, more disorder, and to what
purpose? You think you'll get an honest government? Come on! Where would
it come from? Just recall the Great French Revolution. Where did they end
up? To steal and to lie is no sin in a regular Russian mind, or maybe it
is, but not a very serious one. I'd hate to open a new discussion on
whether it is really so. Just look at the public reaction to the deeds of
the barons you're blaming. They are resented because they are rich, they
are envied for the same reason. Look at the public reaction to a
politician lying. I was actually astounded the day when Khazbulatov (do
you still remember the name?) lied in the parliament as to what he'd said
in some interview - he was caught lying, but no reaction followed. Why?
Because nobody cared. Not even journalists - always sensation-hungry. A
politician lying - no big deal. How can you expect to get an honest
government when this is the case?
Oh, it seems I've run out of steam. Boring discussion, boring arguments,
over and over again.
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <60cbop$mfq$1...@flood.xnet.com>,
st...@typhoon.xnet.com (Joseph Dunphy) wrote:
>
>
> Uh, look guys......
>
> Russia has the land, it has the resources, and it has a lot of
> qualified people who'd like to help it, none of whom are named
> Jeffrey Sachs, or believe in "shock treatment".
Funny how discretited-by-experience Western experts are quickly dismissed
when the victims of their 'ideas' begin to get restless. We are not
talking about a lone gunman here: Sachs represents Western attitude and
philosophy, (at least of the kind it is prepared to sell to others if not
to itself).
>
> But the will has to be there, to act, and we can't give that to
> you. I don't know, whether or not it is there, but I'd like to
> think that it is. One way or another, though, you'll let us know,
> and all that the rest of us can do, is respect your call.
>
> But, it's hard not to wonder. With practically unlimited frontier,
> Russia seemes to be devoid of homsesteaders,
Homesteaders on Siberian permafrost? I have been hearing this retarded
'Russia is the biggest country in the world but can't feed itself' crap
for a long time now. Don't compare Russia's geography with America's,
OK. They are VERY different. Farming was and is MUCH easier in the US,
more arable land and longer growing season without too much rain in the
summer. I would claim that this is one of the reasons for America's
economic success from a historical perspective.
> and filled with
> perenially unemployed urban residents. In a small country, with
> only a little land, like Peru, one could easily understand this,
> but in this context, it leaves many confused. Yes, the frontier
> is bound to be a little violent, but Moscow isn't ?
Your grasp of economics is not particularly deep. There were plenty of
umemployed Americans during the Great Depression.
> Someone wants quick opportunity, and some venture capital - there
> you go. Trap furs, pan for gold, DO SOMETHING, if only to keep
> moving, if for no other reason. Just giving up, doesn't accomplish
> anything.
Your patronizing attitude and ignorance is obcene. What do you know about
Russians 'giving up'. Better yet how do you know there is no reason or
circumstance under which conditions for 'giving up' can occur. It is fun
to blame the victim, isn't it, Dunphy.
Oh, and by the way Dunphy, don't get too cocky about Russia disappearing
from the face of the Earth. Russians have long memories and the West
will find itself shitting its pants sometime in the not to distant
future.
> Oh, someone wrote in, on this thread, to say "don't say that
> Russian parts are inferior quality, or high priced. My father
> imports...". This person must be an undergraduate student, to
> think that anyone will be impressed by this sort of argument.
Your arguments are particularly lame.
> Son, you're related to someone who buys from those who manufacture
> the inventions, of the people who design chips. I am one of those
> people. I know considerably more than you do, about this industry,
> and I have to question your maturity at the very least, if not
> your sanity, if you think that being related to someone
> tangentially connected to the manufacturing process, makes you
> more of an "authority" on the subject, than someone who is
> actually
> trained in the field. Please run off, and play somewhere else. The
> adults are talking, now. So be quiet, and stop embarassing
> yourself.
This is non sequitur shit. Go run off and understand the topics under
discussion before making an ASS out of yourself.
> It is a fact, not an opinion, that the tolerances and
> reliability of Russian electronic components aren't up to NATO
> standards,
You are one bluffing turd, you are no electronics expert. NATO
standards, hah.
> Soviet engineers having compensated for this, as far
> as practical, by improved circuit design, reducing the
> "sensitivity" of a circuit. (This, actually, is good. It refers to
> the process of designing a circuit, so that a given
> percentage error in each of the
> component parameters, introduces less of an error in the output of
> a circuit.) This much is a matter of record, in the literature.
> Though, the parts that I had been referring to, were machine
> parts. As in, moving parts.
From electronic circuits to moving parts, good logic flow there sonny boy.
Stop trying to insult people's intelligence with this cheap improvisation.
> Now, if you all will excuse me, I have work to do. It's been fun,
> but this has been too much of a distraction.
That's right, go crawl back under the rock from which you came.
Alexandr Stepanov
lo...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> Try to learn at least by your own mistakes. Russia's
> overthrown Politbureau - by far more hypocritical and mean than > Yeltsin and Co, or maybe their principles do not actually differ - who > cares? and got Yeltsin. Overthrow him - more bloodshed, more disorder, > and to what purpose? You think you'll get an honest government? Come > on! Where would it come from?
There is no need for bloodshed. Just conduct a referendum. When Yeltsin
gets his 6% of support it will be hard to call his reign "democracy".
The work in the government is well payed both in terms of money and
popular respect. So it is not a problem to find 10 - 20 people to hire
on this positions in the country of 150 millions. Actually it is pretty
hard to keep treitors and thieves at these positions. That is why
election expenditures for them exceed legally allowed amount by 2.5 - 3
orders of magnitude, and money go from abroad rather then from the
citizens of Russia.
Actually I like comparison of rulers to shop assistants. If they steal
all your profit, vandalize your equipment and leave you only
expenditures you fire them. If you can not hire honest personal you
either do all the job youself or close the shop and open another
business.
Greeks quite successfully ruled themselves by direct democracy and so
did Novgorod. Actually it is only size of city squares and volume of
human voice what is named as reasons for representative (potentially
corrupt) democracy. 2500 years passed - people still did not invent
something better then democracy. But during past 25 years people made a
great progress in technology so that sizes of the squares and volume of
human voice are not the problem now.
Simply put a voting device in each home or in public places in the
villages, make a magnetic band in each passport and here you are -
direct democracy that can not be against the people by definition. Every
antipopular decision will cost as much as Yeltsin's election. Not only
Russian bankers will soon run out of money but also Western ones unless
they stop interferring our internal affairs. Such democracy will not
wage the war unless it really needs one, but if it does its army will
have guaranteed moral support at home and will not be forgotten on the
battle field. Soldiers will know they carry out the will of their people
not that of handfull of criminals and organisations like ARA will be
treated as they should be.
I do even know where to take money to finance construction of the
voting system. Nemcov wants to make us buy 2 water counter for each
apartment. The cost is 60$ each. So we will beter buy one voting machine
per 10 apartments and save our expenditures after the first vote - the
vote on communal reform.
Once again there are no reasons named against direct democracy but
technical problems, that could be easily solved by contemporal
technology. Such societies did exist and were quite successfull. To say
more - they did exist in Russia (Novgorod untill Ioan the Terrible).
Russians today are more educated then 500 years ago so there is no
democratic reasons against direct democracy today. If shop assistents
are thieves - fire them and do the job yourself.
Mass media will not stay biased for long in such a system because all
negative consequencess will be felt by the population and there will be
no allmighty politicians to blame. The blame will be solely on the
people themselves or on lying mass media. Democracy is forgiving only to
itself. Nobody else could expect to be forgiven by democracy.
Alex.
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <3429B9...@worldnet.att.net>,
ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
> >
> > The fact that rhe Russian government is a tool of the tycoons and the
> > new capitalist nomenklatura is the main reason Russia has degenerated into
> > a 3rd World country.
>
> You mean Russian goverment is even more of a tool than Mexican
> goverment?
> Not bloody likely. Yet Mexico grows at 8.8%.
0 x infinity = 0
It is easy for 8.8% growth to be achieved near the bottom of the scale.
Much harder at the level of a developed country. In the past 6 or 7
years Russia has been growing at -5 or -6 percent. These numbers are
profound. It is not a crisis it is a collapse. The PER CAPITA GDP has
fallen to less than half of the '90 level.
'Lomat ne stroit.'
> As for Russia being a 3rd
> world
> country...not so. Russia is a developed country that is going through a
> serious crisis. There is a difference.
I prefer objective measures such as the standard of living/income of the
average citizen. Whatever is said about the quality of Soviet goods (in
many ways a red herring considering the quality/price range of goods in
the West) the purchasing power of the average Russian was much, much
higher 7 years ago. I am also ignoring all of the starving senior
citizens in Russia, who die like neglected dogs. The poverty may not be
on the level of the slums of Calcutta, but it is rather moot to nitpick
at the differences. As if one form of poverty was better than another and
everything should be left as it is. With this logic of measuring things
with a ruler of zero length everything looks good (infinitely long).
> >
> > >I don't really believe that life of a person in Kaluga is that much
> > >influenced by the machinations of, say, Berezovsky.
> >
> > Unless everyone can be self-employed, they are dependent on some company
> > to survive. Considering the near non-existence of small business, in
> > complete contrast to the West where it can employ up to 85% of the
workforce,
> > the fate of Russians is disproportionately governed by the performance
> > of a few corporations and the banksters that control them. Even if the
income
> > of only a small percentage of Russians is provided for by these enterprises,
> > this is all that there is to 'trickle down' throughout the rest of the
economy.
>
> However, in US (and to even larger degree in other Western countries)
> large
> companies is the engine of the economy. Most of the small businesses
> either
> sell something to the big companies or to their employees or are selling
> something produced by these companies. If a big company goes down so do
> many
> of the small ones. That's the reason they are not able to close a single
> military base, even the one in Brooklyn, NY.
But my point was and is that small business in Russia is stifled in
contrast to the West. It is popular to describe the horrors of Gosplan,
but Russia is currently controlled by bankster plan. There is little
economic/democratic decentralization. Once again the major decisions are
over-concentrated in the hands of a few not particularly talented
individuals.
> >
> > One of the biggest obstacles to true development in Russia is the corruption
> > of banks. Without a viable credit system Western style capitalism cannot
> > exist in Russia.
> >
>
> Situation not unique to Russia. This is a major reason of the currency
> crisis
> in SE Asia or even financial near-crisis in (of all countries) Japan.
Here I would say that the situation is not comparable to Russia. South
Korea and Japan should be examples for Russia. Countries where there was
a national interest to get up on their feet using the right mix of market
economics and government intervention. The 'crises' in SE Asia are
growing pains, in Russia they are signs of the death of a nation.
I really have to disagree with your assertion about corruption in Japan's
financial system. One of the reasons Japan went from a medieval kingdom
to a first world country in less than one hundered years was because of
the ABSENCE of the 'steal at everyone's expense' mentality typical of
many Russians. Throughout the 50's and 60's it was the stability of the
banking system which helped the country develop. People's deposits were
not 'disappeared' to some Swiss bank accounts or vapourized through bank
collapses.
> >
> > >I don't like capitalism in a least. It's all what is being said about
> > >it. But it's the only system with the results to show for it. If
> > >Russia will again try to implement something special, never seen before,
> > >it is going to be stuck in another hole for another 80 years.
> >
> > No. Russia has to do what the West is doing to be like the West (within
> > certain realistic constraints). It is currently imitating Mobuto's Zaiire.
> >
>
> You say no, then proceed to say what I am saying, in other words.
Implicit in your previous statement was that Russia is on the right path.
I disagree with this contention.
> > >
> > >> The West has sold Russia on this lassiez-faire shite, while
hypocritically
> > >> employing government regulation and intervention to maintain its own
> > >> prosperity.
> > >
> > >Being a real market economy the West has all kinds of shit to sell.
> > >Russian intellectual chose to buy this particular kind and now are
> > >whining.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >By the way, do you really believe that the reason for Russian
> > >economy's troubles is the lack of goverment regulations and
> > >interventions?
> >
> > Russia needs a Theodore Roosevelt and not a Mobutu (Yeltsin) to get it up
> > on its feet. Somebody who will stand up to the tycoons and understands the
> > vital (but not overwhelming) role of government in the economy and society.
> > Currently there is no true Western style regulation of the Russian economy.
> > There is no functioning legal and regulatory infrastructure but corruption
> > instead. Russia is in a DEEP HOLE. Again Western academics (monetarists)
> > spew some crap about self-regulation. But they are cluesless 'empiricists'
> > who do not have a working theory of Western economies. Sachs considers
Bolivia
> > to be a successful example of his theories. Gee. Russia looks like Bolivia
> > now. Such progress. Not!
>
> TR came after decades of president nobody remembers now that were the
> tools
> of the robber barons. Russia is only in the beginning of a long path.
> But
> it seem to move quite fast.
I agree that the rate of evolution in Russia today is much greater than
America at the turn of the century (for many reasons such as an urbanized
and relatively more developed society). But it remains to be seen
whether the current corruption will be overcome instead of permanently
(ie 70 years) damaging Russian society and economy. Russians have to
agitate for change and not submit like after the Bolshevik revolution.
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <342961...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
> >
> > In article <609si3$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Alx says...
>
> > >Russian intellectual chose to buy this particular kind and now are
> > >whining.
> >
> > True.
>
I was referring to the 'purchase' by Russian intellectuals and government
types of bullshit Western monetarist (eg J. Sachs) 'theories' of shock
therapy and laissez-faire. I believe Alx was also talking about Western
'ideas' to which I replied.
> My father has to earn his living by repiring all kinds of Western
> and Eastern (even more) electronic shit. Altough he would be happy to
> use Russian electronic components he can not do so. Guess why? The
> latest Russia made transistor he ever seen was manufactured 1991. As
> soon as Russia was destroyed it lost independence and closed high tech
> plants under Western pressure. Recently Chernomirdin sold Russian
> strategic stockpiles of purified Silicon, Indium, Germanium, making
> restart of Russian facilities even more unprobable. Do not say Russian
> components are worse, or they are more expensive. Just opposite is true.
> Most probably shutting down this facilities was a condition of one of
> the loans West uses to keep tyranny in power. Sure Russian industry
> worth nothing for puppets - they love money and they prefere cash. Such
> atavisms of communism as high tech industry should be destroyed together
> with education, helth care and so on.
I agree with you this is a crime against the Russian people. I don't
support the transoformation of Russia into a de facto 3rd World colony of
the West.
> In order to follow American way start it from Columbus. At least you
> will be sure the start is right.
>
> Actually "America is so prosperous because ..." is another favorite
> liberal lie. One more short circuit for our toughts. Everibody including
> communists use it putting what ever they want in place of period. It is
> even more potent then "work for yourself and do not touch the government
> (we like)". Because the former beats the later if you put "People have
> the right to rebel against a tyrant" instead of the period. It also
> beats quite malignant "to seize and to divide"(Bulgakov) if you mere
> mention Roosevelt's demand to American capitalists to give up half of
> what they have at the days of Great Depression.
>
> In fact the US were lucky. Those guys had nowhere to escape. There was a
> hunting season for them in Europe at the moment.
>
> Alex.
For all of America's prosperity, there are plenty of people trying to
make ends meet everywhere that I have been to. But it is not as bad as
in South America or Africa.
Alexandr Stepanov
Alx wrote:
>
> kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
> >
> > In article <609si3$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Alx says...
> > >
> > >>
> >
> > new capitalist nomenklatura is the main reason Russia has degenerated into
> > a 3rd World country.
>
> You mean Russian goverment is even more of a tool than Mexican
> goverment?
> world
> country...not so. Russia is a developed country that is going through a
> serious crisis. There is a difference.
>
Comparisons to Mexico always surface on the fifteenth minute of the
discussion. There is a great difference though. Mexico had never been a
superpower so it just stayes where it have always been. Sure it never
challenged the US and newer will.
The US do not want a criminal country at its borders so it would never
support criminalitet there as opposed to Russia which is oversees. For
the same reason the US are not interested in economic collapse of
Mexico, as it will inevitably sour illigal immigration problem. Even
more - I am pretty sure that the US plays significant role in inspiring
Mexican patriotism to contain immigration. That also is not an issue for
the US policy in FSU. Just opposit works there - do not you see numerous
ARA postings in s.c.r.?
May be it is this geographic difference between the US and West Europe
what contributes to a much more favorable perception of alternative
political figures such as Lebed. West Europe is much more vulnerable to
"Russian mafia" and potentially to inflow of refugee so it is much more
interested in the stability of Russia. For Western Europe Russia is like
Mexico for the US in this respect.
So the conclusion is that Russian government is to the same degree a
tool as Mexican one, but these two tools are used for different
purposes. To go a bit further I will note that as far as Mexican
government is not used for solely destructive purposes it might count
more on the popular support at home and hence is less dependent on the
US.
Alex.
Alx
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> In article <3429B9...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that rhe Russian government is a tool of the tycoons and the
> > > new capitalist nomenklatura is the main reason Russia has degenerated into
> > > a 3rd World country.
> >
> > You mean Russian goverment is even more of a tool than Mexican
> > goverment?
> > Not bloody likely. Yet Mexico grows at 8.8%.
>
> 0 x infinity = 0
>
> It is easy for 8.8% growth to be achieved near the bottom of the scale.
I was just saying that corruption doesn't prevent economic development.
> Much harder at the level of a developed country.
That proves that in your heart you don't believe Russia to be a 3rd
world
country. You are absolutely right. A country with the skills to build a
spacestation (the only one in the world) is hardly undeveloped.
> In the past 6 or 7
> years Russia has been growing at -5 or -6 percent. These numbers are
> profound. It is not a crisis it is a collapse. The PER CAPITA GDP has
> fallen to less than half of the '90 level.
>
Looking at the past indicators is a bit like driving while looking in
the
rearview mirror. Actually, the latest statistics have been encouraging.
Industrial production in the year to June is up 2%. However I even more
encouraged by the direction of the stock market and interest rates (and
inflation, but that's the old news) Looking at these is like looking
through
the windshield in my driving analogy.
>
> > As for Russia being a 3rd
> > world
> > country...not so. Russia is a developed country that is going through a
> > serious crisis. There is a difference.
>
> But my point was and is that small business in Russia is stifled in
> contrast to the West. It is popular to describe the horrors of Gosplan,
> but Russia is currently controlled by bankster plan. There is little
> economic/democratic decentralization. Once again the major decisions are
> over-concentrated in the hands of a few not particularly talented
> individuals.
>
This description would fit South Korea pretty well and, to some degree,
Japan.
> > >
> > > One of the biggest obstacles to true development in Russia is the corruption
> > > of banks. Without a viable credit system Western style capitalism cannot
> > > exist in Russia.
> > >
> >
> > Situation not unique to Russia. This is a major reason of the currency
> > crisis
> > in SE Asia or even financial near-crisis in (of all countries) Japan.
>
> Here I would say that the situation is not comparable to Russia. South
> Korea and Japan should be examples for Russia. Countries where there was
> a national interest to get up on their feet using the right mix of market
> economics and government intervention. The 'crises' in SE Asia are
> growing pains, in Russia they are signs of the death of a nation.
>
The reason for financial crises in these country was the banks having
huge amounts of bad debts (up to 80% of their assets!) Banks knew that
but still continued to give away the money. Why? Goverment intervention
and 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours' way of doing business. Hardly
a 'viable credit system'
> I really have to disagree with your assertion about corruption in Japan's
> financial system. One of the reasons Japan went from a medieval kingdom
> to a first world country in less than one hundered years was because of
> the ABSENCE of the 'steal at everyone's expense' mentality typical of
> many Russians. Throughout the 50's and 60's it was the stability of the
> banking system which helped the country develop. People's deposits were
> not 'disappeared' to some Swiss bank accounts or vapourized through bank
> collapses.
>
This is a quote from last week's Economist
" Japan's racketeering scandal rumbles on. Of the big four securities
houses,
Nomura is already in trouble; some of its executives have been charged
with
authorizing payments to racketeers. Now five Yamaichi men have been
arrested.
Daiwa securities announced that eight of its top managers, including its
president and chairman, would resign to 'take responsibity' for illegal
payments to racketeers.
Economist's prose is terse. Newsweek recently ran a much more colorful
material
complete with gangsters beating resident out of their apartments in the
centers
of cities, murder of a banker by a professional killer in a dark parking
lot, etc.
Reminds you of a certain country, doesn't it?
> Implicit in your previous statement was that Russia is on the right path.
> I disagree with this contention.
>
Right path? I have no idea. It will become clear only about 50 years
into the
future. All I am saying is that economic improvment in Russia is
inevitable.
Growth is a normal state of every society (absent wars)
> >
> > TR came after decades of president nobody remembers now that were the
> > tools
> > of the robber barons. Russia is only in the beginning of a long path.
> > But
> > it seem to move quite fast.
>
> I agree that the rate of evolution in Russia today is much greater than
> America at the turn of the century (for many reasons such as an urbanized
> and relatively more developed society). But it remains to be seen
> whether the current corruption will be overcome instead of permanently
> (ie 70 years) damaging Russian society and economy. Russians have to
> agitate for change and not submit like after the Bolshevik revolution.
>
Russia for the last 6 months finaly got people in charge who know what
they
are doing. Now, what they do may succeed or fail, but changing economic
team
every couple of months is a sure recepte for failure.
Alx.
lo...@compuserve.com
> Actually I like comparison of rulers to shop assistants. If they steal
> all your profit, vandalize your equipment and leave you only
> expenditures you fire them. If you can not hire honest personal you
> either do all the job youself or close the shop and open another
> business.
I'm not sure you'll be able to find an honest one, what is more
important, even if you do, at some point you'll need to delegate this
choice to somebody else. And to manage you need more than 10-20 people.
What about local authorities. Do you think they are there for nothing?
Bottom line - you'll end up exactly where we are today. As for closing
the shop and going somewhere else - that's what most of the readers of
this newsgroup actually did.
> Simply put a voting device in each home or in public places in the
> villages, make a magnetic band in each passport and here you are -
> direct democracy that can not be against the people by definition. Every
> antipopular decision will cost as much as Yeltsin's election.
> I do even know where to take money to finance construction of the
> voting system. Nemcov wants to make us buy 2 water counter for each
> apartment. The cost is 60$ each. So we will beter buy one voting machine
> per 10 apartments and save our expenditures after the first vote - the
> vote on communal reform.
> Once again there are no reasons named against direct democracy but
> technical problems, that could be easily solved by contemporal
> technology. Such societies did exist and were quite successfull. To say
> more - they did exist in Russia (Novgorod untill Ioan the Terrible).
Nope, Alex. Will not work today. Never worked very well in the past. Just
recall Alexander Nevsky - he, obviously a very talented guy, was ousted
from Novgorod more than once, due to this "direct democracy".
Make your choice, but once it is made - live with those you've chosen for
at least some time. Now - you don't like Nemtsov's ideas. Very well. But
how do you expect anybody to work, conforming every step with the public
opinion? If you want to get out of crisis, some measures will ALWAYS be
unpopular. And in your "direct democracy" will immediately lead to change
in the government.
What you're saying is very much along the idea of giving every enterprise
to the workers - and letting them manage it without directorship. This
idea was implemented in Russia in 1917 and called Soviets. The rest you
know.
Coming back to ousing Yeltsin democratically (referendum, etc.). I'd vote
against. Not because I particularly like Yeltsin, but because it'll
create a very dangerous precedent. Next time - it'll be even easier.
Those who say that all Russia needs now is stability are imho , probably,
right.
Lo
Alexandr Stepanov
Alx wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually "America is so prosperous because ..." is another favorite
> > liberal lie. One more short circuit for our toughts. Everibody including
> > communists use it putting what ever they want in place of period. It is
> > even more potent then "work for yourself and do not touch the government
> > (we like)". Because the former beats the later if you put "People have
> > the right to rebel against a tyrant" instead of the period.
>
> the cities on the East Coast has an armory smack in the middle of it?
> (in New York it is in the Central Park). Do you know the reason they
> put them there?
You have got my point absolutely right. It is a generic lie. No matter
what you put in it becomes lie as it is isolated from context. Listener
either swallow the lie, or refutes the lie by remembering some other
relevant facts from the real context of American life. Leave aside that
it usually remains on the level of exchanging plattitudes due to our
less then satisfactory understanding of America. The main aim of the lie
is achieved any way - the attention is distracted from Russia's problem.
All this was artistically presented in the song "Zato mi delaem raketi
..."
Second example was less trivial so I refuted it myself. You did this
work for the first one.
Alex.
Alexandr Stepanov
> > more - they did exist in Russia (Novgorod untill Ioan the Terrible).
>
> Nope, Alex. Will not work today. Never worked very well in the past. Just
> recall Alexander Nevsky - he, obviously a very talented guy, was ousted
> from Novgorod more than once, due to this "direct democracy".
One who payes orders the music. Professors in the US also change
several jobs. Nobody complines. Novgorod wanted to live well not to
"collect them all". That is its right. Alexander Newskij worked on
contract. To be a leader is not a right but a privillege that might be
granted or might not.
If the best people have the right to rule the country it is not a
democracy. It is Aristocracy, which I favor best, but I do not remember
when aristocracy beated oligarchy. Usually either democracy does so or
military. (aristosracy in some sense).
> Make your choice, but once it is made - live with those you've chosen
> for at least some time.
It resembles so much hated communist's regime when it was prohibitely
difficult to fire a worker who is always drunk at workplace because
administration, party organisation and trade union had all to give they
permission to do so. Even if they all agree drinker could sue them and
to be restored at his job. Just like minority in the US now.
Sure President is minority, but not of such a sort that needs
protection.
> Now - you don't like Nemtsov's ideas. Very well. But
> how do you expect anybody to work, conforming every step with the
> public opinion?
Public payes, public orders the music. If you can not work this way
leave. Leader is mere citizen he has no other rights beside those
granted by the people. If you are right - explain your point to the
people. If ypu can not do so hire somebody who can.
Actually in 1991 communism fell not because it was not right but solely
because "coup leaders" failed to go to the people and to explain what is
the problem and preferred translate the "shwan lake" at all TV channels.
Probably Gorbachev did not allow them reveal the shit to keep his
liberal image. If they were responsible politicians and disobeyed
Gorbachev they had a real chance to save the country, but they were mere
communist functionaries.
Also USSR woul never "collapse" if Gorbachev introduced direct
democracy.
What percent of population approved dismemberment of the USSR at
referendum? Sure Gorbachev would collapse immideately, soon followed by
Yeltsin, but Russia would stay.
Alex
Timothy Watson
st...@typhoon.xnet.com (Joseph Dunphy) writes:
> that if your competitors have already been automating (Next Supercomputer
> had all of 10 employees, for example) competing with them, in terms of
Now that's impressive ;)
Alx
ROLO15 wrote:
>
> deleted
>
>
> Same kind of condition exists in the US. Of course some Americans are
> suspicious of Russians, recent enemies who still seem to be able to revert
> back to Communism.
The situation was never symmetric. During the Soviet times Russians were
never
as hostile toward the Americans as the reverse. In fact, the only
Westerners
Russians disliked were, understandably, the Germans. Even the Soviet
propaganda
line always was "the Western goverments are all the terrible things, but
the
people are wanderful". You would be hard pressed to find a Russian movie
similar
to the scores of American movies about bad Russians invading US (like
"Red Dawn"
which made me laugh like crazy the first time I watched it).
Ironically, the genuine anti-Americanism appeared in Russia only
recently, mostly
as a reaction to the American arrogance.
Alx.
Alx
alex wrote:
>
>
> There's just something about Russians, that makes you feel
> so smug, so superior AND arrogant.... :))))
I am sure you feel smug and arrogant, but superior you are only
to a starfish and not by much.
AlX
ROLO15
I have noticed in may postings a variety of references to conspiracies to
"obsrtuct Russian welfare", "keeping Russia in its place", "aggressive NATO
intents", etc., etc.
It is of course true that some individuals do dislike other individuals without
any specific reason and on the basis of prejudice alone. I am sure, for
example, that there are numerous Russians who dislike Americans. I am an
ethnic Russian who lived all my life abroad, and in the US for 48 years. But I
traveled to Russia twice and was very much impressed by the fact that when I
would stop at some corner to look at my map, there were frequently people who
came up to me and, not realizing that I speak Russian, addressed me in English
and offered to show me the way wherever I was going. I was very much impressed
by Russian friendliness.
Same kind of condition exists in the US. Of course some Americans are
suspicious of Russians, recent enemies who still seem to be able to revert
back to Communism. On the other hand, the West is interested in trade and
prosperous economy resulting form it, first of all. There are people in the US
who are enthusiastically for trading with Vietnam or even Cube, both still
communistic ratholes. There are great many who consider Russai to be a future
important trading partner. There is no reason at all to think that there is
some world-wide conspiracy to "keep Russia down". There was no such conspiracy
against Germany or Japan, there is no such conspircay against China. Why would
there be such a conspiracy against Russia? Is the west interested helping
Zhuganov's propaganda nad takeover? There are some personal dislikes, as there
are in Russia, but certainly no conspiracy.
However, Russians have a habit of presenting the people who are trying to deal
with them with exorbitand demands, and if they do not get immediately what
they want, they think it is a conspiracy against them. They also tend to
frequently violate agreementws already concluded. They want to play the first
fiddle in every business deal disregarding the fact that they only offer
natural treasures, while the West has to produce money. If the enterprise goes
bankrupt, the Russians still have their treasures, but the Westerners lost
their money. Study the history of several such joint enterprises, especially
in oil and some where Russians ordered imports to their specifications, but
never send ships to pick them up or paid for them. Westerns are supe cautious
dealing with Russia, not out of hostility as such, but because of such
experiences.
The worst thing Russia can do is not to see itself from the point of view of
others but develop a national paranoia. The easiest thing to do in life is to
blame others for all the misfortunes that befall us.
Igor Fedchenia
Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>
>
> Good question. I am wondering myself, why such conspiracy should exist. And
> yet there are reasons to believe it does, some of which I outlined above.
>
Conspirasy theory is not an explanation. It is simptom.
--
Igor
alex
In article <6170tj$8...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, ti...@worldnet.att.net says...
I didn't know that !!!
Are you saying that starfish are, therefore, by implication,
higher then Russians ????
ROLO15
In democracypeople get the government they deserve. In the US in the minds of
many Pres. Clinton is a liar and a bribetaker. Yet, he got re-elected. In my
opinion this has happened for two reasons: FIRST, the economy is O.K. Not
great as the government would have you believe, but O.K. So, who cares if the
President lies. SECOND, tho opposition (Sen. Dole) was no-too-honest himself.:
on one hand he bragged how he voted for every social program that forced
higher taxes, on the other hand he promised to reduce taxes. He also was
getting mixed up in his statements. Both of these men won their primaires, so
the voters were not too particular about whom they put up for a vote.
In Russi Yeltsin did win elections. The reason why he won may be that people
voted against return to Communism rather than Yeltsin. O.K., this is what they
got. Would Russia be better off with the Communists repeating their failed
experiments and re-instituting gulags and executions? Will Russians vote for
politiciand likely to be a little more honest (Lebed)? Your future is in you
hands, fellows. As our future is in ours. Good luck to both of our nations.
Kirill
Alx wrote:
>
> The situation was never symmetric. During the Soviet times Russians were
> never
> as hostile toward the Americans as the reverse.
How do you know? Did you live here at that time?
> You would be hard pressed to find a Russian movie similar
> to the scores of American movies about bad Russians invading US (like "Red Dawn"
> which made me laugh like crazy the first time I watched it).
That's very interesting - do you think that garbage
like 'Red Dawn' did in any way represent the feelings
americans had toward the USSR?
Than, to be consistent, you will have to explain
scores of [american] movies, where Russians are good guys?
> Alx.
Respectfully, Kirill
Origin: If anything I wrote offended anybody in any way -
I will take it back to the point of denying I ever said it
Kirill
Alx wrote:
>
> Kirill wrote:
> >
> > Alx wrote:
> > >
> > > The situation was never symmetric. During the Soviet times Russians were
> > > never
> > > as hostile toward the Americans as the reverse.
> >
> > How do you know? Did you live here at that time?
> >
>
In USA, about 10 - 30 years ago
>
> I am sure you can find Americans (and Russians) with all kinds of
> feeling. However, I do believe that the fact that "Red Dawn"
> (and other garbage) has been produced, made nice amount of money
> and is still being shown on TV represents something
In the early 80-ies I lost a bet with a friend
who said that US movie 'Hangar-18' will be shown on [Russian] TV,
because it portrays US government in the most reprehensible way.
I couldn't imagine full-blown new american movie on Soviet TV;
but I was wrong - the movie was shown, apparently as a propaganda piece.
Fast forward 10 years - coming to USA in 1989 (and having lived here
ever since), I was surprised to see, that _almost all_ US movies
of action/adventure variety portray US government/authority/police etc
in the above-mentioned way (9 out of 10 could be
considered 'anti-american' - just check your local Blockbuster)
Why - well, that is understandable - plots of action movies need a
bad guy(s), and (US) authority figures are easily recognizable by
the populace.
> > Than, to be consistent, you will have to explain
> > scores of [american] movies, where Russians are good guys?
> >
>
> Most of these movies were made during the short spell of
> perestroika.
Well, 'Russians are coming' (first thing which comes
to mind) - was made in sixties (or maybe early seventies. By the way,
Russia of that time had all the charm and humanity of Hitler's Germany -
just in case you forgot.
> force. Only this season they kidnap American president
> (the American president), want to destroy the world for
> no reason (the Saint)
^^^^^^^^^
If I remember correctly, in this [clinically idiotic] movie
Russian prez is being portrayed better than American one in
most of American movies.
> and smuggle nuclear weapons
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So - in every other local action movie some high-positioned
SOB in US army or the govenment tries to sell all kinds of
weapons to all kinds of terrorists - and The Good Guy chases
and beats the hell out of him in the end.
(And also - don't they try to [smuggle nukes]?)
> (the latest movie, Peacemaker). There was one more
> such movie that came up this summer, but I forget it
> at the moment.
>
> AlX.
Anyway - for every 'antirussian' movie you can name - I can give
you 10 'antiamerican' ones.
Very respectfully, Kirill
Alx
Kirill wrote:
>
> Alx wrote:
> >
> > Kirill wrote:
> > >
> > > Alx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The situation was never symmetric. During the Soviet times Russians were
> > > > never
> > > > as hostile toward the Americans as the reverse.
> > >
> > > How do you know? Did you live here at that time?
> > >
> >
> > Live where at what time?
>
> In USA, about 10 - 30 years ago
>
No, I didn't. In fact, I did not live anywhere 30 years ago - I am
not that old.
> >
> > I am sure you can find Americans (and Russians) with all kinds of
> > feeling. However, I do believe that the fact that "Red Dawn"
> > (and other garbage) has been produced, made nice amount of money
> > and is still being shown on TV represents something
> In the early 80-ies I lost a bet with a friend
> who said that US movie 'Hangar-18' will be shown on [Russian] TV,
> because it portrays US government in the most reprehensible way.
> I couldn't imagine full-blown new american movie on Soviet TV;
> but I was wrong - the movie was shown, apparently as a propaganda piece.
>
That's right: most of the anti-American movies shown in Russia were
American made.
> Fast forward 10 years - coming to USA in 1989 (and having lived here
> ever since), I was surprised to see, that _almost all_ US movies
> of action/adventure variety portray US government/authority/police etc
> in the above-mentioned way (9 out of 10 could be
> considered 'anti-american' - just check your local Blockbuster)
> Why - well, that is understandable - plots of action movies need a
> bad guy(s), and (US) authority figures are easily recognizable by
> the populace.
>
Yes, in the post-Vietnam post-Watergate era bad goverment officials
have become a staple of the American movies. That was a reaction to
people all of a sudden finding that their goverment lied (suprise,
suprise)
>
> > > Than, to be consistent, you will have to explain
> > > scores of [american] movies, where Russians are good guys?
> > >
> >
> > Most of these movies were made during the short spell of
> > perestroika.
> Well, 'Russians are coming' (first thing which comes
> to mind) - was made in sixties (or maybe early seventies. By the way,
> Russia of that time had all the charm and humanity of Hitler's Germany -
> just in case you forgot.
>
> > force. Only this season they kidnap American president
> > (the American president), want to destroy the world for
> > no reason (the Saint)
> ^^^^^^^^^
> If I remember correctly, in this [clinically idiotic] movie
> Russian prez is being portrayed better than American one in
> most of American movies.
>
Well, even "Red Dawn" had a good Russian that wouldn't shoot
at the end.
> <deleted>
> Anyway - for every 'antirussian' movie you can name - I can give
> you 10 'antiamerican' ones.
>
My original point was not that Americans don't make "anti-American"
movies (btw, none of them are _really_ anti-American). The point
was that while there are quite a few anti-Russian Americans movies
there are few, if any anti-American Russian made movies. Why?
Certainly not because of the benevolence of the Communists. The
reason for this was something I mention before: the Americans
were never as unpopular in Russia as the Russian were in the US.
Ironically, the situation now is almost reverse.
AlX
> Very respectfully, Kirill
Kirill
Alx wrote:
>
Well, I got your opinion.
Mine is different.
Which is normal.
And it's good it didn't degenerate into names-calling.
Best of luck
Kirill
Hugo S. Cunningham
Alx <ti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[deleted]
>My original point was not that Americans don't make "anti-American"
>movies (btw, none of them are _really_ anti-American). The point
>was that while there are quite a few anti-Russian Americans movies
US films tended more to be anti-S.o.v.i.e.t than anti-Russian. It
was widely recognized among intelligent Americans that individual
Russians (like individual citizens of East-Central Europe) were
potential allies. Some brainless action films like "Red Dawn" did
emerge in the 1980s, but they did not have broad influence.
[rest deleted]
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Jerome Bigge
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 02:17:42 GMT, hc...@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
wrote:
Even "RED DAWN" didn't really show the average Russian soldier as
anything but just a human being following orders. The "bad guys" in
the movie were mostly like KGB or some politicial officer types.
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the WARLADY series of SF fantasy novels.
Download them at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
Visit the new newsgroup alt.culture.warrior-women!
ROLO15
Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>The latest Russia made transistor he ever seen was manufactured 1991. As
>soon as Russia was destroyed it lost independence and closed high tech
>plants under Western pressure. Recently Chernomirdin sold Russian
>strategic stockpiles of purified Silicon, Indium, Germanium, making
>restart of Russian facilities even more unprobable. Do not say Russian
>components are worse, or they are more expensive. Just opposite is true.
>Most probably shutting down this facilities was a condition of one of
>the loans West uses to keep tyranny in power.
Alexandr:
I am ethnically Russian, and so please do not take my remarks as being
anti-Russian. Only as anti-Soviet/Communist culture. The communists have
always perpetuated the mith of "capitalist encirclement". This created a
national paranoya and inability to take responsibility on themselve for what
Russians do. If Russians fail, it is never their fault, it is always a
conspiracy by somebody else.
Before you start considering the ani-Russian conspiracy theories, please answer
the following questions:
1. Was there an ani-German and anti-Japanese conspiracies after the WWII?
2. If there were such conspiracies, how come Germany( I don't know about
Japan) were well on the road to recovery after four ears after the end of war
in spite of destruction and Russia is not after six years?
3. If there were no such conspiracies against those countries, why should
there be conspiracy against Russia? We were not even attacked by Russia thway
we were attacked by Japan.
4. Is there currently a conspiracy against China (which is doing very
well in international markets)?
5. If there is no conspiracy against China, why should there be a
conspiracy against Russia?
6. If you think that Russia is closing down plants in response to US
pressure as a condition to grant loans, what does matter more: $300 billions
Russian individuals have deposited aborad buying Swiss villas and condomiiums
in London, and establishing foreign bank accounts, etc, or loans to Russia
which probably do not amount to more than $30 billions?
I could ask many more questions. But the point is that one is wise to always
blame himself first. One can correct one's own mistakes. If you blame others
firs, how can you correct your own errors? Or don't you make any?
P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the inhirent
lack or productivity of socialist systems.
Alexandr Stepanov
ROLO15 wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> Alexandr:
> I am ethnically Russian, and so please do not take my remarks as being
> anti-Russian. Only as anti-Soviet/Communist culture.
That is exactly what I mean. It is Russian culture what is under attack
now. the state is mere territory without the people, the people are mere
cattle without their culture. That is why your attack against our
culture is an attack against the people and as such an attack against
the Russia.
> The communists have always perpetuated the mith of "capitalist
> encirclement". This created a national paranoya and inability to take > responsibility on themselve for what Russians do. If Russians fail, it > is never their fault, it is always a conspiracy by somebody else.
Wrong. The only leader who did blame "capitalist encirclement" was
Lenin. Stalin newer failed so there was no reason to blame. The only
exception is GPW, but the role of "capitalist encirclement" is obvious
in this case.
All the other communist leaders starting with Hrushev blamed their
predecessors while destroying the superpower. There were no references
to the "capitalist encirclement". there was a myth about 200 years
without a war for the US and 300 years of Mongol occupation to explain
Russia's lagging behind the US.
> Before you start considering the ani-Russian conspiracy theories, > please answer
> the following questions:
> 1. Was there an ani-German and anti-Japanese conspiracies after > the WWII?
No.
> 2. If there were such conspiracies, how come Germany( I don't > know about Japan) were well on the road to recovery after four ears
> after the end of war in spite of destruction and Russia is not after > six years?
Russia pretty much was on this road... despite the US conspiracy.
> 3. If there were no such conspiracies against those countries, why > should there be conspiracy against Russia? We were not even attacked by > Russia thway we were attacked by Japan.
If you were it would be the last attack in your life what Perl Harbor
defenitely was not. You will not probably mind that there is conspiracy
against Cuba, Iraq, Lybia, Yugoslavia. These countries newer attacked
the US. The US used to attack all of them.
Leave this aside - the conspiracy of such a kind is impossible when
there is a competition between two superpowers for influence in the
world. If the US played foul in Japan they would face there the same
problem they have faced in Vietnam and Cuba.
> 4. Is there currently a conspiracy against China (which is doing > very well in international markets)?
Sure there is. But China has its own government. There are 16
millions Chineese Americans it also contributes to moderate US policy
toward China
> 5. If there is no conspiracy against China, why should there be > a conspiracy against Russia?
There is conspiracy against China. The difference is succeptibility.
China has the government serving China's interests. Russia has the
government serving interests of the US.
> 6. If you think that Russia is closing down plants in response to > US pressure as a condition to grant loans, what does matter more: $300 > billions Russian individuals have deposited aborad buying Swiss villas > and condomiiums in London, and establishing foreign bank accounts, etc, > or loans to Russia which probably do not amount to more than > $30 billions?
I am glad you remember it. Lets take a look who made it possible for
these Russian individuals to rob us.
Did not the US support destruction of Russia by Yeltsin?
Didn't they support Gajdar who said "This nation will not work until it
is robbed"?
Didn't they support totally criminal privatization?
Do not they still support Chubajs who gave away state company that used
to bring more than 1$ billion a year to state coffers for 48$ million
loan. Even when it surfaced that Chubajs gave this 48$ millions to his
classmate Potanin from state's coffers to get it back as a "loan to the
state" the US still support Chubajs. Do you think the US merely help
Russian people whose strongest desire is to get rid of all their
industry? Or may be it reflects Chubajs'es and the US's desire to make
return to communism impossible?
I guess it is the US who cares about return of Communism, while
Chubajses of all sorts care about seizing people's assets. May be it is
in interests of Russian people?
The US supports criminals who destroy Russian industry (to make return
to the communism impossible). Criminals rob the people using American
support simply to get rich. I do not see how people benefit from this
scheme.
Sure, they buy villas abroad. But for the US it is much more preferable
comparing to possible investing these money in producing tanks and
rokets.
Stalin used to send such guys where they belong. Still this obscure
"camp" argument is the most used in anticommunist propaganda. But if you
do not send criminals to the camps whole country turns to a camp. All
the people turn to convicts, abused by stronger convicts. 2/3 of Russian
industry is in criminal hands according to FBI.
2/3 of Russians depend solely on the mood of criminals. The remaining
1/3 also depends on them heavily. Whole country is one huge camp.
Criminal language in mass media, contract murders, robberies, criminal
"taxation" is more efficient then normal, criminals are hired to enfoce
court rulings and so on. May be this is in best interest of the people?
May be people enjoy getting rid of "Soviet/Communist culture"?
> I could ask many more questions. But the point is that one is wise to
> always blame himself first. One can correct one's own mistakes. If you > blame others firs, how can you correct your own errors? Or don't you
> make any?
Good advise. Give it to Japaneese destroyed in Hirosima and Nagasaki.
Give it to thousands of civilian refugee killed in Drezden. Give it to
Vietnameese poisoned by American chemical weapons. It looks like only
Vietnamees menadged to take such an advise. Guess why!
Yes, I do blame myself for what I have done in 1991, for my vote for
Yeltsin and Gajdar. I gues Soljenitsin blames himself for what he have
done to earn his Nobel prise. But it is not productiv for me and
Soljenitsin to continue on blaming ourselves. It is time to blame the
real cause of the disaster - our enemies.
> P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the
> inhirentlack or productivity of socialist systems.
USSR did not decomposed itself. Overhelming majority of soviet people
voted for preserving USSR. Destruction of Russia was done against
people's will. If you do not think so look who tries to derail
Russia-Belorussian Union. The US buy demonstrators to throw stones in
the windows of Russian embassy in Minsk. The US offered Lukashenka 5$
millions for not signing union accord. US puppets Yeltsin, Chubajs and
Nemcov attack Belorus daily while majority of population in both
republics desire reconstruction of the union.
40 years ago the US was in a pretty deep shock thanks to "unproductive
socialist systeme". Only when we have launched Sputnik "Ape suits"
stopped in the US. Billions of dollars were invested in science and
education. Still there are many illiterate in the US. Sure, now they
appear in Russia, but not due to socialist system at all.
Sure there was a defect in communist system in Russia. It is inability
to prepare new leader before old one dies. Hrushev with his reforms put
Russia on the werge of hunger, planted Chechnja time bomb, transfered
Crimea to Ukraine, prohibited private property. Brejnev was unable to
recover this damage. Gorbachev was even worse then Hrushev. Yeltsin is
200% enemy of the people. He doesn't even make a secret of this.
Still inability to transfere the power is not a defect of ideology. It
is defect of the state. Stalin made the state for himself. It would be
great system if he was immortal and I am sure US would lag further and
further behind Russia after Sputnik. Why should Russia slow down? But we
all are mortal. And power transfer is a pretty serious problem.
It was not monarchy, not democracy there were no clear cut rules for
selecting the heir. The real political forces KGB, Party and the Army
competed for the power. No one was able to win alone. So they
compromised, usually on very weak or sick leader.
Now the succession problem, not economy at all treatenes communism in
China. Belorussia does much beter then Russia despite (or thanks to?)
"lagging behind" in reforms. Economic inefficiency of socialism is not
at all proven or self evident as democrats pretend.
Alex.
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <61h3l6$l...@news-central.tiac.net>,
hc...@removethis.tiac.net wrote:
>
> Alx <ti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [deleted]
> >My original point was not that Americans don't make "anti-American"
> >movies (btw, none of them are _really_ anti-American). The point
> >was that while there are quite a few anti-Russian Americans movies
>
> US films tended more to be anti-S.o.v.i.e.t than anti-Russian. It
> was widely recognized among intelligent Americans that individual
> Russians (like individual citizens of East-Central Europe) were
> potential allies. Some brainless action films like "Red Dawn" did
> emerge in the 1980s, but they did not have broad influence.
>
> [rest deleted]
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
Only for some reason Russians in these films were usually pictured as
square red-faced men with brutal behaviour. It was not just films, read,
for instance, any of the now 'semi-classical' Le Carre novels with
Russian involvement. Nothing explicitly negative, but the general
attitude is 'Russians are strange, sometimes enigmatic, and not at all
attractive'.
Whether or not this way of presenting Russians influenced the average
American is not for me to judge.
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <343C9A...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> ROLO15 wrote:
> >
> > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>
> > Alexandr:
> > I am ethnically Russian, and so please do not take my remarks as being
> > anti-Russian. Only as anti-Soviet/Communist culture.
>
> That is exactly what I mean. It is Russian culture what is under attack
> now. the state is mere territory without the people, the people are mere
> cattle without their culture. That is why your attack against our
> culture is an attack against the people and as such an attack against
> the Russia.
Inferiority complex with superiority mania. Americans trying to purposely
attack culture! And no better target than Russia! Ask Eugenius, he'll
tell you that the only culture worth attacking is the Ukrainian, and
there is no Russian culture at all. Come on, are you serious?
>
> > The communists have always perpetuated the mith of "capitalist
> > encirclement". This created a national paranoya and inability to take > responsibility on themselve for what Russians do. If Russians fail,
it > is never their fault, it is always a conspiracy by somebody else.
>
> Wrong. The only leader who did blame "capitalist encirclement" was
> Lenin. Stalin newer failed so there was no reason to blame.
What about his theory of classes and capitalist resistance
intensification on the way to communism?
>
> All the other communist leaders starting with Hrushev blamed their
> predecessors while destroying the superpower. There were no references
> to the "capitalist encirclement". there was a myth about 200 years
> without a war for the US and 300 years of Mongol occupation to explain
> Russia's lagging behind the US.
Have you ever read Fomenko? I don't mean his theories, but the facts about
'Mongol occupation'?
<snip>
> > 2. If there were such conspiracies, how come Germany( I don't > know about Japan) were well on the road to recovery after four ears
> > after the end of war in spite of destruction and Russia is not after > six years?
>
> Russia pretty much was on this road... despite the US conspiracy.
Was? When? In 1989? With no milk for children?
<snip>
>
> > 4. Is there currently a conspiracy against China (which is doing > very well in international markets)?
>
> Sure there is. But China has its own government. There are 16
> millions Chineese Americans it also contributes to moderate US policy
> toward China
For some reason lots of Russians emigrating to Israel in the 70's-80's
did not positively affect USSR-Israel relationship
>
> > 5. If there is no conspiracy against China, why should there be > a conspiracy against Russia?
>
> There is conspiracy against China. The difference is succeptibility.
> China has the government serving China's interests. Russia has the
> government serving interests of the US.
A-a-a, now I know, you are in favour of the Chineese single party model.
It looks like Russia had a good chance under Gorbachev, but blew it. Or
do you think he was a CIA agent?
<snip>
> Sure, they buy villas abroad. But for the US it is much more preferable
> comparing to possible investing these money in producing tanks and
> rokets.
Of course it is! Would not it be for you? Or do you think that Russia can
come back only if it starts manufacturing tanks again?
> Stalin used to send such guys where they belong. Still this obscure
> "camp" argument is the most used in anticommunist propaganda. But if you
> do not send criminals to the camps whole country turns to a camp.
20 million criminals is great! But I never thought you were a Stalinist.
<snip>
>
> Yes, I do blame myself for what I have done in 1991, for my vote for
> Yeltsin and Gajdar. I gues Soljenitsin blames himself for what he have
> done to earn his Nobel prise. But it is not productiv for me and
> Soljenitsin to continue on blaming ourselves. It is time to blame the
> real cause of the disaster - our enemies.
"I am invincible, for I never fight!" You are looking for enemies - you
sure as hell get them.
>
> > P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the
> > inhirentlack or productivity of socialist systems.
>
> USSR did not decomposed itself. Overhelming majority of soviet people
> voted for preserving USSR.
Not Soviet, Russian. I can't recall this sort of referendum conducted in
any of the republics. And imho, it's the only way to do it properly.
<snip>
> Still inability to transfere the power is not a defect of ideology. It
> is defect of the state. Stalin made the state for himself. It would be
> great system if he was immortal and I am sure US would lag further and
> further behind Russia after Sputnik.
Alex, this is really boring. Did you ever compare USA and USSR economies
as they were in the 50's? Is Sputnik (btw. buit for purely military
reasons) enough to make people happy? Or is Sputnik+ideology the recipe,
food shortages being of secondary importance?
Belorussia does much beter then Russia despite (or thanks to?)
> "lagging behind" in reforms. Economic inefficiency of socialism is not
> at all proven or self evident as democrats pretend.
>
I'm totally confused. Did you lately speak to a single Belorussian?
Kirill
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> It was not just films, read,
> for instance, any of the now 'semi-classical' Le Carre novels with
> Russian involvement. Nothing explicitly negative, but the general
> attitude is 'Russians are strange, sometimes enigmatic, and not at all
> attractive'.
I don't remember anything anti-Russian in 'The Russia House'. Do you?
(And it is the novel with most Russian involvment, int't it)
Best wishes, Kirill
AlX
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> In article <343C9A...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
> as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
> >
> > ROLO15 wrote:
> > >
> > > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>
> >
> > > P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the
> > > inhirentlack or productivity of socialist systems.
Please, don't confuse the failure of communism and dissolution of
USSR. These are separate events and while communism was doomed to
fail, the Union could have been preserved.
> >
> > USSR did not decomposed itself. Overhelming majority of soviet people
> > voted for preserving USSR.
>
> Not Soviet, Russian. I can't recall this sort of referendum conducted in
> any of the republics. And imho, it's the only way to do it properly.
>
>
It was done in March 1991 in every republic except those that refused
to participate: Baltics, Moldavia and, I believe, Georgia and Armemia.
(What they were afraid of? A positive answer?). The result was
overwhelming yes for the new Union, overall and for each republic.
The overall result was about 75% for Union. Central Asia voted yes
upward of 90%. More than 70% of Ukrainians voted for the Union.
Please remember this next time you hear somebody talk about
people's choice.
Alx.
>
> Lo
>
Kirill
Hugo S. Cunningham wrote:
>
> US films tended more to be anti-S.o.v.i.e.t than anti-Russian. It
Agreed. But the distinction was blurred.
Pretty much like 'German' and 'Nazi' meant almost always
the same in the time of WWII
> Some brainless action films like "Red Dawn" did
> emerge in the 1980s, but they did not have broad influence.
"R.D" was brainless - which does not necessarily mean that
its message (that Russians/Soviets were the enemy) was wrong.
Average US movie about Nazi Germany is just as silly - but
its' antiNazi message is clear and loud.
In general, the level of "Anti-Sovietness" in American
propaganda (I'm talking about V.of A., RadioLiberty etc.)
was so low, that in some strange way it was _pro-Soviet_
Like calling Jeffrey Dahmer "a guy with less-than-proper
dietary habits".
>
> --Hugo S. Cunningham
Respectfully, Kirill
Santa Clara, CA
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
Alexandr Stepanov wrote: > > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote: > > >
20 million criminals is great! But I never thought you were a >
million.
Alex, it's not a matter of belief. Now some argue that 20 million
actually died in these camps. I only meant the number of prisoners.
> > Alex, this is really boring. Did you ever compare USA and USSR
economies > > as they were in the 50's? Is Sputnik (btw. buit for purely
military > > reasons) enough to make people happy? Or is
Sputnik+ideology the > > recipe, food shortages being of secondary
importance? > > Food shortages were the results of Hruschev's
activities in agriculture.
A-a-a, and in the 50's - the result of the war, and in the 40's -
naturally, because of the same war, and in the 30's - because of the
'capitalist resistance'? Or are you saying there were no problems of that
kind in the 30s? Ah, in the 20's it was better, but than Buharin was
still at large.
> Sputnik is not the only example. Civilian aviation, TV, even computers
> despite Hruschev's "In russia people will think, not machines". BESM
> was the faqstest computer in Europe.
What about quality? Ot do you mean Soviet TVs of the 50's were the same
quality as their western analogues?
> Sure We should compare to the US as
> Europe is not famous for its computers. 8080 microprocessor was produced
> in USSR 4 years after Intel made it, 8086 - 6 years later. 386 was
> planed for 1996 - 10 years delay.
You'd better not get into this sort of argument with me - I'm a computer
professional, not a PC hacker. Your arguments do not hold water.
First, all you examples with the exception of KVN TVs - have you ever
heard of these "kupil, vkluchil, ne rabotaet" models? - and PC chips
belong to the military or semi-military spheres. Sputnik, fast
computers, jet planes - what about consumer goods? You're in the States
now, so you, probably, forgot what it meant not to be able to buy a
proper pair shoes and a coat. If "kirza I vatnik" are OK with you -
fine, but for some reason I'm not delighted about them. Try to recall the
queues for imported goods in the 60s and the 70s. You are right - there
were no such queues in the 50s - no imported goods, and as Zhvanetski
once put it: "Essli drugih tuflei ne videl, nashi - Vo kakie!"
Second, supercomputers are great in the scientific or military area. Very
fast, rather primitive software. Commercial computer SW is much more
complex (and it's these computers that make your life easier - reserve
tickets, maintain your bank accounts, automate supermarkets, etc.) USSR
never had any success with commercial computers, neither in commercial SW
development, nor in implementation Today SW technologies define
computers' added value, HW - to a significantly lesser extent.
Third. Cloning Intell chips is no big deal. Everybody can do it today.
Quality is what matters, that's why if you want a good computer, you
still go to Compaq, IBM or HP. Sorry, Russian clones have never even come
close to being competitive.
And yes, nobody has proven that USSR-style socialism has no future, but
no one has actually proven the contrary either, has one? And this
insatiable desire to experiment on people is quite remarkable!
Last, but not least. You're a funny person. You shift your position all
the time. Today you support the idea of the direct ancient Novgorod-type
democracy, tomorrow you praise Stalin's authoritarianism (if not
dictatorship). Today you select the facts to fit your theories (other
facts are disregarded), tomorrow you make up your facts (e.g. Belorussia
economically doing better than Russia is a made up fact). Nothing is
persistent about you except for youthful aggression, but maybe it's
natural...
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <61jvk2$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <343C9A...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
> > as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > ROLO15 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > > P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the
> > > > inhirentlack or productivity of socialist systems.
>
> USSR. These are separate events and while communism was doomed to
> fail, the Union could have been preserved.
>
> > >
> > > voted for preserving USSR.
> >
> > Not Soviet, Russian. I can't recall this sort of referendum conducted in
> > any of the republics. And imho, it's the only way to do it properly.
> >
> >
>
> to participate: Baltics, Moldavia and, I believe, Georgia and Armemia.
> (What they were afraid of? A positive answer?). The result was
> overwhelming yes for the new Union, overall and for each republic.
> The overall result was about 75% for Union. Central Asia voted yes
> upward of 90%. More than 70% of Ukrainians voted for the Union.
>
> Please remember this next time you hear somebody talk about
> people's choice.
>
> Alx.
If not for this last statement, I'd have said you had a point, but it
looks like a mere statement of the fact was not enough for you, you also
decided to pick me. Ok. I do remember this referendum, and I'm afraid I
can't agree it had anything to do with people's choice. Imho, it was a
sly and belated attempt to save the USSR. It's plain ridiculous to ask
whether people want to live in the Union, when the form of this union has
not yet been worked out. If you care about people's choice when there is
a strong separatist tendency, you'll ask whether they want to live in a
SEPARATE state, and then do it in each republic. When in August 1991 the
old Union showed everybody what to expect of the new one - everybody
immediately voted against (de facto). The best proof of this voting is a
very fast drift of evry republic except Belorussia away from the centre
(Russia), or do you think people of these republics had nothing to do
with this drift? That is you you really take people's choice to your
heart.
Alexandr Stepanov
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> In article <343C9A...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
> as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
> >
> > ROLO15 wrote:
> > >
> > > 2. If there were such conspiracies, how come Germany( I don't > know about Japan) were well on the road to recovery after four ears
> > > after the end of war in spite of destruction and Russia is not after > six years?
> >
> > Russia pretty much was on this road... despite the US conspiracy.
>
> Was? When? In 1989? With no milk for children?
1945+6=1951 Not 1989. Or you also attack Russian "soviet/communist"
culture.
I do not know why 6 years though. May be because 6 years passed after
1991? It would be better argument supporting existence of conspiracy
against Russia. There was no conspiracy against Germany so it recovered
in 6 years. There is conspiracy against Russia so its GDP halved during
the same period.
> > Sure, they buy villas abroad. But for the US it is much more preferable
> > comparing to possible investing these money in producing tanks and
> > rokets.
>
> Of course it is! Would not it be for you? Or do you think that Russia > can come back only if it starts manufacturing tanks again?
For some reason Reagan did not give away 300$ billion to criminals.
Instead he spent it for "Star Wars". Such investment may be not the best
possible (read russian press for this period), but make conswiderable
good for science, technology, education, and employment (read American
press for this period).
> 20 million criminals is great! But I never thought you were a > Stalinist.
It is great lie. I do not beleave in more then 1 million. By the way I
do not know how many "new Russians" are hanging around and how many
official collect miserable (Chubajse's words) 100 000$ bribes.
> > Stalin made the state for himself. It would be
> > great system if he was immortal and I am sure US would lag further > > and further behind Russia after Sputnik.
>
> Alex, this is really boring. Did you ever compare USA and USSR economies
> as they were in the 50's? Is Sputnik (btw. buit for purely military
> reasons) enough to make people happy? Or is Sputnik+ideology the
> recipe, food shortages being of secondary importance?
Food shortages were the results of Hruschev's activities in agriculture.
Sputnik is not the only example. Civilian aviation, TV, even computers
despite Hruschev's "In russia people will think, not machines". BESM
was the faqstest computer in Europe. Sure We should compare to the US as
Europe is not famous for its computers. 8080 microprocessor was produced
in USSR 4 years after Intel made it, 8086 - 6 years later. 386 was
planed for 1996 - 10 years delay. So I believe the lag between Russia
and the US in electronics was less then 4 years in 50-thies and
60-thies.
Alex
Alexandr Stepanov
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> Alex, it's not a matter of belief. Now some argue that 20 million
> actually died in these camps. I only meant the number of prisoners.
Sources please.
> A-a-a, and in the 50's - the result of the war, and in the 40's -
> naturally, because of the same war, and in the 30's - because of the
> 'capitalist resistance'? Or are you saying there were no problems of that
> kind in the 30s? Ah, in the 20's it was better, but than Buharin was
> still at large.
>
There were no in 50-thies.
> You'd better not get into this sort of argument with me - I'm a computer
> professional, not a PC hacker. Your arguments do not hold water.
My father and me used to build computers at home since late 70-thies.
There were not a single western resistor in them. Still I do not
remember any processor failures. Only real problem with soviet chips I
remember was DMA for PCs. When we menaged to build PC XT at home DMA was
the only foreign chip in out computer.
> Sputnik, fast
> computers, jet planes - what about consumer goods? You're in the States
> now, so you, probably, forgot what it meant not to be able to buy a
> proper pair shoes and a coat. If "kirza I vatnik" are OK with you -
> fine, but for some reason I'm not delighted about them. Try to recall the
> queues for imported goods in the 60s and the 70s. You are right - there
> were no such queues in the 50s - no imported goods, and as Zhvanetski
> once put it: "Essli drugih tuflei ne videl, nashi - Vo kakie!"
Yes, I do remember lines for Japaneese toilet paper. It should be fut to
use it. Still I feel OK using domestic product.
>
> Second, supercomputers are great in the scientific or military area. Very
> fast, rather primitive software. Commercial computer SW is much more
> complex (and it's these computers that make your life easier - reserve
> tickets, maintain your bank accounts, automate supermarkets, etc.) USSR
> never had any success with commercial computers, neither in commercial SW
> development, nor in implementation Today SW technologies define
> computers' added value, HW - to a significantly lesser extent.
If you are a computer specialist you should know it is not a big deal to
write software. Especially this Microsoft supplied sh*t. There is
nothing special about it. The problem with personal computers could be
attributed to SEV cooperation. USSR is a big country so it builds big
computers. Eastern European countries are small so they build personal
ones.
> Last, but not least. You're a funny person. You shift your position all
> the time. Today you support the idea of the direct ancient Novgorod-type
> democracy, tomorrow you praise Stalin's authoritarianism (if not
> dictatorship). Today you select the facts to fit your theories (other
> facts are disregarded), tomorrow you make up your facts (e.g. Belorussia
> economically doing better than Russia is a made up fact). Nothing is
> persistent about you except for youthful aggression, but maybe it's
> natural...
I do not like democracy, including Novgorod style.
It is democracy what produces "ape suits", what makes mice cost 2$ a
week for a lab, what forbids experiments with abortion materials, what
tries to ban transgenic animals. It is democracy what let people not to
study at school for expense of life quality for the rest of their lifes.
It is democracy what equals humans and animals.
I prefer the power of the best - aristocracy. Communism was much closer
to it then capitalism, especially in Stalin's times. Unions of writers,
composers. Huge awards for artists. Free high quality education for all.
Free medical care. Cheap books. Communists were interested in developing
Russian people. Democracy is not. In Stalin's times volonteers worked to
liquidate illiteracy among adults in villages. Today in the US
volonteers fight illiteracy in ... American schools. Guess what does
democracy need schools for if its volonteers, not teachers fight
illiteracy there!
But I can lieve with democracy as well. I fact aristocracy can not
defeat contemporal Russian criminal oligarchy. Social status of
intelligentsia high in communists times is zero now. There no chances
for us to be in power. But democracy at least does exist on the paper in
Russian constitution. It leaves us some chance to survive. Then it will
be easier to find understanding in good citisens then in criminals to
reestablish aristocracy.
My position is to choose least evel of twoo. So I prefer democracy over
oligarchy. It doesn't mean I like it.
Alex.
AlX
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> In article <61jvk2$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> > >
> > > as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ROLO15 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the
> > > > > inhirentlack or productivity of socialist systems.
> >
> > USSR. These are separate events and while communism was doomed to
> > fail, the Union could have been preserved.
> >
> > > >
> > > > voted for preserving USSR.
> > >
> > > Not Soviet, Russian. I can't recall this sort of referendum conducted in
> > > any of the republics. And imho, it's the only way to do it properly.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > to participate: Baltics, Moldavia and, I believe, Georgia and Armemia.
> > (What they were afraid of? A positive answer?). The result was
> > overwhelming yes for the new Union, overall and for each republic.
> > The overall result was about 75% for Union. Central Asia voted yes
> > upward of 90%. More than 70% of Ukrainians voted for the Union.
> >
> > Please remember this next time you hear somebody talk about
> > people's choice.
> >
> > Alx.
>
> If not for this last statement, I'd have said you had a point, but it
> looks like a mere statement of the fact was not enough for you, you also
> decided to pick me. Ok. I do remember this referendum, and I'm afraid I
> can't agree it had anything to do with people's choice. Imho, it was a
> sly and belated attempt to save the USSR. It's plain ridiculous to ask
> whether people want to live in the Union, when the form of this union has
> not yet been worked out. If you care about people's choice when there is
> a strong separatist tendency, you'll ask whether they want to live in a
> SEPARATE state, and then do it in each republic. When in August 1991 the
> old Union showed everybody what to expect of the new one - everybody
> immediately voted against (de facto). The best proof of this voting is a
> very fast drift of evry republic except Belorussia away from the centre
> (Russia), or do you think people of these republics had nothing to do
> with this drift? That is you you really take people's choice to your
> heart.
When people voted overwhelmingly for the Union it wasn't what they
really wanted. In fact, they wanted something completely opposite.
They just were too stupid to vote for it. In reality they wanted
borders where there were none before. They wanted their freedom of
movement to be limited. They wanted to pay bribes to custom officers.
They wanted former nobodies like Nazarbaev or Snegur be able to
call themselves presidents. Many of them wanted to become foreiner
in their own home.
Yeah, right.
There is a simple explanation for the amazingly strong 'separatist
tendencies'. Look at who is in charge of the republics. That's
right, former party bosses (or just former KGB agents like Landbergis).
Amazing, isn't it? You would expect the newly free people to throw
out the old communist rascals and install Vaclav Havels and Lech
Walesas. However, even where it did happen it did not last: just
look at who and how replaced Gamsahurdia or Elchibey. What was going
on here?
The explanation is simple. By 1991 the party bosses in the republics
(yes, including Russia), the same people who kept CPSU in power,
realized
that if they get rid of the federal center, if they wrap themselves
if their newly adopted (often also newly invented) nationalist
colors, if they declare independence they would suddenly have more
power than they could ever hope, they could become as wealthy as
they could never wish and they would never have to answer to
anyone.
Gorbachev and the knucklehead leaders of the 'coup' gave them the
opportunity and weary population who were promised rivers of milk
went along. Now, of course, we hear about 'peoples' choice'
New mythology is being created right before our eyes.
AlX
>
> Lo
>
AlX
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov wrote: > > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote: > > >
>
> Quality is what matters, that's why if you want a good computer, you
> still go to Compaq, IBM or HP. Sorry, Russian clones have never even come
> close to being competitive.
>
>
A small correction here. Today Russian clone-makers amount to more
than 2/3 of the new computer sales in Russia (according to the
Economist) reversing the ratio of just 3 years ago. Russian-made
computers are of equal quality to the Western-made one and are
cheaper. Actually, the ratio would be even more in favor of Russian
clones if not for the Russian goverment that chooses to buy only
the foreign computers. The households buy Russian. Foreign
manufacturers have been forced to slash prices or withdraw
altogether. All this is according to the Economist.
The moral is that Russians can compete and win. See the subject
of the thread. It's not hopeless at all.
> Lo
>
Dmitry Yaitskov
Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
<snip>
> Yes, I do remember lines for Japaneese toilet paper. It should be fut to
> use it. Still I feel OK using domestic product.
Where? In the States or in Russia? If you mean Russia, there were
lines for *any* toilet paper in the 80-ies - and BTW, all of it was
Russian-made.
> If you are a computer specialist you should know it is not a big deal to
> write software. Especially this Microsoft supplied sh*t. There is
> nothing special about it. The problem with personal computers could be
> attributed to SEV cooperation. USSR is a big country so it builds big
> computers. Eastern European countries are small so they build personal
> ones.
I am sorry to say it - but only a person who doesn't have a clue would
say that writing software is not a big deal. And your argument about
big vs. small countries and computers reminds me of a joke, which
translated into English would go sth like this: Long live Soviet
microcomputers - the biggest microcomputers in the world!
> > Last, but not least. You're a funny person. You shift your position all
> > the time. Today you support the idea of the direct ancient Novgorod-type
> > democracy, tomorrow you praise Stalin's authoritarianism (if not
> > dictatorship). Today you select the facts to fit your theories (other
> > facts are disregarded), tomorrow you make up your facts (e.g. Belorussia
> > economically doing better than Russia is a made up fact). Nothing is
> > persistent about you except for youthful aggression, but maybe it's
> > natural...
>
> I do not like democracy, including Novgorod style.
> It is democracy what produces "ape suits", what makes mice cost 2$ a
> week for a lab, what forbids experiments with abortion materials, what
> tries to ban transgenic animals. It is democracy what let people not to
> study at school for expense of life quality for the rest of their lifes.
> It is democracy what equals humans and animals.
> I prefer the power of the best - aristocracy.
...which equals *some* (bad) humans with animals, while equalling "the
best" with gods...
Look, are your serious? What you are saying is such pure bullshit that
I have trouble beleiving in your seriousness, so feel kind of stupid
arguing with it... The power of the best, my foot.
> Communism was much closer
> to it then capitalism, especially in Stalin's times. Unions of writers,
> composers. Huge awards for artists. Free high quality education for all.
> Free medical care. Cheap books. Communists were interested in developing
> Russian people. Democracy is not. In Stalin's times volonteers worked to
> liquidate illiteracy among adults in villages.
You are crazy.
> Today in the US
> volonteers fight illiteracy in ... American schools. Guess what does
> democracy need schools for if its volonteers, not teachers fight
> illiteracy there!
> But I can lieve with democracy as well. I fact aristocracy can not
> defeat contemporal Russian criminal oligarchy. Social status of
> intelligentsia high in communists times is zero now. There no chances
> for us to be in power. But democracy at least does exist on the paper in
> Russian constitution. It leaves us some chance to survive. Then it will
> be easier to find understanding in good citisens then in criminals to
> reestablish aristocracy.
> My position is to choose least evel of twoo. So I prefer democracy over
> oligarchy. It doesn't mean I like it.
>
> Alex.
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
M. Papisov
> Economic inefficiency of socialism is not
> at all proven or self evident as democrats pretend.
Alex, forget "socialism" if you want "democrats" to understand what you
are saying. This is how Stalin, and the followers, called the system. For
the rest of the world, "socialism" refers to something completely
different. But this is not the issue, really. As well as the
"conspiracies". Every government conspires against all others, it's quite
natural. The real issue is why some of them consistently win.
I'd like to draw your attention to the very basics. What are the
fundamental factors of any economy? How about these: (1) availability and
quality of material resources; (2) availability and quality of tools and
technologies; (3) availability, quality and morale of work force; (4)
quality of management. Say, I am going to claim that the soviet economy
failed because of bad management and low morale (other problems being
secondary). Then, I am going to claim that both bad management and low
morale were inherentely present because of major flaws in the underlying
ideology.
Any objections?
MP
--
* please delete the very first letter in my email address to reply.
Nobody at all, including my past, current and future employers, is responsible for whatever is written above.
alex
In article <61mi7k$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, ti...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <61jvk2$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >
>> > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>> > >
================================
Why do you above, SOVOK "bydlo" SAVAGES post your shit here
in soc.culture.ukrainian ?
Shit in soc.culture.russian or s.c.soviet or soc.culture.pure-bred.sovok
or soc.culture.russian.moderated !
You have *4* [that's FOUR !] groups to SOVOK AROUND IN, don't you,
you Sovok "bydlo" savages!
Plus, you could use 2 more groups, alt.sodomy and alt.sex.bestiality...
That's a total of *6*, that's SIX !
==================================
>> > > >
>> > > > ROLO15 wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > P.S. Russia was not destoryed. USSR decomposed itself because of the
>> > > > > inhirentlack or productivity of socialist systems.
>> >
>> > Please, don't confuse the failure of communism and dissolution of
>> > USSR. These are separate events and while communism was doomed to
>> > fail, the Union could have been preserved.
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > USSR did not decomposed itself. Overhelming majority of soviet people
>> > > > voted for preserving USSR.
>> > >
>> > > Not Soviet, Russian. I can't recall this sort of referendum conducted in
>> > > any of the republics. And imho, it's the only way to do it properly.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
Igor Fedchenia
AlX wrote:
>
>
> Amazing, isn't it? You would expect the newly free people to throw
> out the old communist rascals and install Vaclav Havels and Lech
> Walesas. However, even where it did happen it did not last: just
> look at who and how replaced Gamsahurdia or Elchibey. What was going
> on here?
>
Well, I don't see any reasons why anybody should regret about
Gamsahurdia. When I red his speaches I thought that his is the
youngest brother of Stalin. Georgiangs defenetly won respect for
kicking him out. Amazing, isn't it, that the former KGB chief
happens to be better in many respect than professional dessident?
--
Igor
Igor Fedchenia
Lena wrote:
>
>
> He isn't crazy. Just not very smart. This kind is easy to brainwash.
> When I think how that could be possible that tens of millions were killed
> during Stalin's times while the rest was cheerfully supporting a next
> "party line", I see people like Mr. Stepanov among the latter ones. If
> there are enough of such Stepanovs, everything's possible.
>
> Yelena.
>
Opiat feministki Sashu obigaujut. A on takoj ... prostoj ...
i za dergavu emu obidno ...
--
Igor
AlX
Exactly. In fact, Ukrainians have to be happy that their independence
was lead by a cynical turncoat Kravchuk and not by a genuine
nationalist like Chornovil. Ukraine doesn't exactly flourish
now, but with a real nationalist goverment it would've
collapsed.
Alx
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <343E61...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> > Sputnik, fast
> > computers, jet planes - what about consumer goods? You're in the States
> > now, so you, probably, forgot what it meant not to be able to buy a
> > proper pair shoes and a coat. If "kirza I vatnik" are OK with you -
> > fine, but for some reason I'm not delighted about them. Try to recall the
> > queues for imported goods in the 60s and the 70s. You are right - there
> > were no such queues in the 50s - no imported goods, and as Zhvanetski
> > once put it: "Essli drugih tuflei ne videl, nashi - Vo kakie!"
>
> Yes, I do remember lines for Japaneese toilet paper. It should be fut to
> use it. Still I feel OK using domestic product.
Can not recall any other queues? You must be suffering from amnesia. :-)
>
> >
> > Second, supercomputers are great in the scientific or military area. Very
> > fast, rather primitive software. Commercial computer SW is much more
> > complex (and it's these computers that make your life easier - reserve
> > tickets, maintain your bank accounts, automate supermarkets, etc.) USSR
> > never had any success with commercial computers, neither in commercial SW
> > development, nor in implementation Today SW technologies define
> > computers' added value, HW - to a significantly lesser extent.
>
> If you are a computer specialist you should know it is not a big deal to
> write software.
Alex, you disappoint me more and more. What do you know of writing stable
software?
> Especially this Microsoft supplied sh*t. There is
> nothing special about it.
I'm no Microsoft's fan, but the thing is the world commercial IT is for
the most part NOT Microsoft-based. MS-based PCs run workstation-type
programs, in fact not very much different from dumb terminal microcode,
but the business logic is implemented in the business servers (pls, don't
confuse them with Netware of NT servers). Business servers SW is one of
the most complex products of human intelligence - and my point is USSR
never even started considering that type of challenge. If you still
believe computer SW is a piece of cake, no wonder you tend to give
half-baked advices as to how to make life better in Russia.
> The problem with personal computers could be
> attributed to SEV cooperation. USSR is a big country so it builds big
> computers. Eastern European countries are small so they build personal
> ones.
So, according to this logic, Japan is reduced to just chips, and the USA
- to IBM mainframes. Is that what you're trying to say?
>
> > Last, but not least. You're a funny person. You shift your position all
> > the time. Today you support the idea of the direct ancient Novgorod-type
> > democracy, tomorrow you praise Stalin's authoritarianism (if not
> > dictatorship). Today you select the facts to fit your theories (other
> > facts are disregarded), tomorrow you make up your facts (e.g. Belorussia
> > economically doing better than Russia is a made up fact). Nothing is
> > persistent about you except for youthful aggression, but maybe it's
> > natural...
>
> I do not like democracy, including Novgorod style.
> It is democracy what produces "ape suits", what makes mice cost 2$ a
> week for a lab, what forbids experiments with abortion materials, what
> tries to ban transgenic animals. It is democracy what let people not to
> study at school for expense of life quality for the rest of their lifes.
> It is democracy what equals humans and animals.
It's not democracy, Alex, it's people. Maybe they are not perfect, but
I'm afraid, you'll have to lump it.
> I prefer the power of the best - aristocracy. Communism was much closer
> to it then capitalism, especially in Stalin's times.
Oh. right! Only you'd probably agree that this communism had nothing
communal about it, and it certainly was not "people's power" as it
proclaimed.
> composers. Huge awards for artists.
Resulted in Daniel/Siniavsky process, Brodsky extradiction, Solgenitsin
emmigration, not very efficient handling of that spere, eh?
> Free high quality education for all.
Only in big cities.
> Free medical care.
I'm still suffering from the sort of dental care i was receiving in
Russia.
> Cheap books.
Banned books as well.
> Communists were interested in developing Russian people.
The way they liked. I'm afraid they have not been very successful here
either, judging by what we see today.
> Democracy is not.
Ultimately democracy is the way people take care of themselves. If you
maintain the herd needs dogs to look after it, well, I at least
understand you, but try not to call it communism, what has it got to do
with the term?
> In Stalin's times volonteers worked to
> liquidate illiteracy among adults in villages.
Killing those who seemed "too smart" at the same time. Or will you again
ask for sources?
>Today in the US
> volonteers fight illiteracy in ... American schools. Guess what does
> democracy need schools for if its volonteers, not teachers fight
> illiteracy there!
It's their business. One thing you learn when you grow older is leaving
people alone.
> But I can lieve with democracy as well. I fact aristocracy can not
> defeat contemporal Russian criminal oligarchy. Social status of
> intelligentsia high in communists times is zero now.
Say it again, please. What was the status of intelligetsia in the Soviet
times?
> There no chances
> for us to be in power.
Do you crave for power? I don't.
> But democracy at least does exist on the paper in
> Russian constitution. It leaves us some chance to survive. Then it will
> be easier to find understanding in good citisens then in criminals to
> reestablish aristocracy.
> My position is to choose least evel of twoo. So I prefer democracy over
> oligarchy. It doesn't mean I like it.
>
> Alex.
You're not supposed to like everything you see. The first thing to learn,
though, is to be tolerant. If you ever come accross Yuri Rytheu's "Son v
nachale tumana", read it - you won't be sorry.
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <61miu9$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> >
> A small correction here. Today Russian clone-makers amount to more
> than 2/3 of the new computer sales in Russia (according to the
> Economist) reversing the ratio of just 3 years ago. Russian-made
> computers are of equal quality to the Western-made one and are
> cheaper. Actually, the ratio would be even more in favor of Russian
> clones if not for the Russian goverment that chooses to buy only
> the foreign computers. The households buy Russian. Foreign
> manufacturers have been forced to slash prices or withdraw
> altogether. All this is according to the Economist.
>
> The moral is that Russians can compete and win.
But of course, it can. If Russians stop whining, blaming jews, Chechen
separatists, Bill Clinton,etc., looking for international plots against
poor them, and start "cleaning sheds", as prof. Preobrazhenski pointed
out, it'll be out of misery in no time at all.
Now concerning Intel cloning. I was not aware of this 2/3 statistics, I
tend to think it's a bit of exaggeration, but what I know for sure is
that many of the western computer manufacturers are closing down or
selling out their facilities in Russia. Production costs are too high,
and the quality is still low. A couple of years ago IBM (a pioneer of
western PCs manufacturing in Russia) closed down their assembly line in
Zelenograd. Those PCs costed exatly the same as the likes assembled in
Scotland, but for some reason consumers preferred the latter.
You're right, though. One needs to start from somewhere. Just remember
quality boost never occurs overnight.
LO
Alexandr Stepanov
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> In article <61miu9$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> > >
>
> > A small correction here. Today Russian clone-makers amount to more
> > than 2/3 of the new computer sales in Russia (according to the
> > Economist) reversing the ratio of just 3 years ago. Russian-made
> > computers are of equal quality to the Western-made one and are
> > cheaper. Actually, the ratio would be even more in favor of Russian
> > clones if not for the Russian goverment that chooses to buy only
> > the foreign computers. The households buy Russian. Foreign
> > manufacturers have been forced to slash prices or withdraw
> > altogether. All this is according to the Economist.
> >
> > The moral is that Russians can compete and win.
Russia produces NO computers today.
You write about "screwdriver technology". Assembling PCs from boards. If
it means to produce computers them my 3.5 years old kid also can
"produce computers". It would be fine if computer boards could be mined
like coal or ores or if it was possible to grow them as potatoes. Until
you make chips you can talk only about assembly not about manufacturing.
If you do not see the difference remember 10 years ago export of 386
processors to the USSR was banned. It could be banned every minute now.
Export of computers, with speed 2 GFlop/sec and more to Russia is
strictly controlled now. To make it 7 Pentium II 300 would be enough.
Why does Russia steal such computers instead of making them at home?
Because it is unable to develop such a computer today even with ready
made processors.
You might ask where are those guys who developed Russian supercomputer
Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
their property.
>
> But of course, it can. If Russians stop whining, blaming jews, Chechen
> separatists, Bill Clinton,etc., looking for international plots against
> poor them, and start "cleaning sheds", as prof. Preobrazhenski pointed
> out, it'll be out of misery in no time at all.
Bulgakov was an artist not a philosopher. He didn't like proletariat
and he wrote about this. But as a great artist he could not lie. So
after initial monolog against terror prof. Preobrajenskij for the rest
of the time was busy terrorizing Sharikov. What is the state supposed to
do with millions of Sharikovs and Preobrajenskijs if even one Sharikov
can not be treated without terror and PhDs are potential (or real?)
murderers? At the same time Shvonder worked to make a human being out of
this former thief. He found job for him, made him read books.
Bulgakov can not disregard total literacy achieved by communists.
Instead he claimed that every dog in Moscow can read. Bold assumption
isn't it?
Or take for example Griboedov's home. Bulgakov hates it, but can not
lie. He shows state's support for writers. He hates it, but he is not a
philosopher and could be excused. (And he actually was.) If he was alive
today he would probably teach Russian literature in some third rate
American colledge (as Evtushenko does) or deliver pizza and empty trash
cans in New York (as do many less happy but quite talented Russian
writers do today). For the simple reason - there is no union of writers.
No state support. No Griboedov's hous.
> A couple of years ago IBM (a pioneer of
> western PCs manufacturing in Russia) closed down their assembly line in
^^^^^^^^
Alexandr Stepanov
> say that writing software is not a big deal. And your argument about
> big vs. small countries and computers reminds me of a joke, which
> translated into English would go sth like this: Long live Soviet
> microcomputers - the biggest microcomputers in the world!
What piece of software causes such a respect? If you have at least MS in
computer science there should not be any.
A na schet razdelenija truda v SEV delo obstoit tak:
Soglashenie o tom chto mikroEVM budut proizvodits'a Pol'shej, GDR i
Bolgariej, a bol'shie EVM (tipa IBM 370 i vishe) i malie (tipa PDP11 i
vishe) Sovetskim Sojuzom - eto fakt.
Sv'az' razmera mashin s razmerom vipuskajushej ih strani - moja shutka
po etomu povodu.
Fakt + shutka /= Argument
> > It is democracy what equals humans and animals.
> > I prefer the power of the best - aristocracy.
>
> ...which equals *some* (bad) humans with animals, while equalling "the
> best" with gods...
>
> Look, are your serious? What you are saying is such pure bullshit that
> I have trouble beleiving in your seriousness, so feel kind of stupid
> arguing with it... The power of the best, my foot.
Ask Lena about this. She will make it clear for you. She would equal to
animals only herself and hanfull of animal rights activists. Rest of us
are much worse then animals from her point of view.
Alex.
AlX
Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
>
> raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <61miu9$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Russia produces NO computers today.
> You write about "screwdriver technology". Assembling PCs from boards. If
> it means to produce computers them my 3.5 years old kid also can
> "produce computers". It would be fine if computer boards could be mined
> like coal or ores or if it was possible to grow them as potatoes. Until
> you make chips you can talk only about assembly not about manufacturing.
>
> If you do not see the difference remember 10 years ago export of 386
> processors to the USSR was banned. It could be banned every minute now.
> Export of computers, with speed 2 GFlop/sec and more to Russia is
> strictly controlled now. To make it 7 Pentium II 300 would be enough.
> Why does Russia steal such computers instead of making them at home?
> Because it is unable to develop such a computer today even with ready
> made processors.
>
> You might ask where are those guys who developed Russian supercomputer
> Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> their property.
>
Alex, the problem with that you want all righ away - ot nothing. Rome
was not
built in one day. Remember, Sony started as a small shop that assembled
radios
- and look how it turned out.
Alx.
Alexandr Stepanov
> > at all proven or self evident as democrats pretend.
>
> are saying. This is how Stalin, and the followers, called the system. For
> the rest of the world, "socialism" refers to something completely
> different. But this is not the issue, really. As well as the
> "conspiracies". Every government conspires against all others, it's quite
> natural. The real issue is why some of them consistently win.
>
> I'd like to draw your attention to the very basics. What are the
> fundamental factors of any economy? How about these: (1) availability and
> quality of material resources; (2) availability and quality of tools and
> technologies; (3) availability, quality and morale of work force; (4)
> quality of management. Say, I am going to claim that the soviet economy
> failed because of bad management and low morale (other problems being
> secondary). Then, I am going to claim that both bad management and low
> morale were inherentely present because of major flaws in the underlying
> ideology.
>
> Any objections?
Yes. Leave alone morale of workforce. Morale of workforce depends on
management nearly entirely.
Look at labs around. The level of each lab is defined entirely by the
boss. If professor is a great scientist and good boss ALL his students
are smart and motivated. Not because of selection, but because of good
management. Even student of moderate abilities becomes great in good
lab. Even lazy one gets so excited that works around the clock. But much
more frequently careers are killed in bad labs. Even if student works
around the clock there his chances for great career are zero.
There were 3 Bosses in Baylor. One of them left to become Merk vice
president. 20 minutes talk to one of them is enough to believe that
there is an order in the world and human intelligence is allmighty. 20
minutes talk to my boss gives quite different result.
The Boss is scarce resurce in any society. Director of the US Human
Genom project told me he had tremendous difficulties getting money for
his research from companies. He tought all managers in the US are stupid
until he realised that only top managers of big companies worth talking
to. Such guys quite often are as good as best professors. But there is
handfull of them for whole the US. Others mere do what they are told.
So leave workforce alone. It is nothing you can do to it after you give
them highschool, libraries, sport, art, and craft clubs, health care and
daycare for their kids, safety, housing. Now you have to provide for the
Boss.
There was the Boss between 1922 and 1953. Then party, KGB and army
became owners of the counrty and did not allow for the Boss to appear
for simple reason - there can be only one Boss and no one wants to
yield. There were Bosses in all these forces, but they had no chances to
get on the top.
This Bossless situation is perpetuated now by the US.
So it is not Communism what failed. It is Bossless system. Communism is
efficien when there is the Boss. Capitaslism is inefficient when there
is no Boss. Efficiency and ideology are two independen variables. It is
the state's task to get the Boss on the top. It is not ideology's task.
Ity is state what failed not ideology.
Alex.
AlX
raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
>
> In article <61miu9$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > >
>
> > A small correction here. Today Russian clone-makers amount to more
> > than 2/3 of the new computer sales in Russia (according to the
> > Economist) reversing the ratio of just 3 years ago. Russian-made
> > computers are of equal quality to the Western-made one and are
> > cheaper. Actually, the ratio would be even more in favor of Russian
> > clones if not for the Russian goverment that chooses to buy only
> > the foreign computers. The households buy Russian. Foreign
> > manufacturers have been forced to slash prices or withdraw
> > altogether. All this is according to the Economist.
> >
> > The moral is that Russians can compete and win.
>
> separatists, Bill Clinton,etc., looking for international plots against
> poor them, and start "cleaning sheds", as prof. Preobrazhenski pointed
> out, it'll be out of misery in no time at all.
>
Some Russians are complaining, others are busy with creating real stuff.
Of course, we tend to hear the squeaking wheel.
> Now concerning Intel cloning. I was not aware of this 2/3 statistics, I
> tend to think it's a bit of exaggeration, but what I know for sure is
> that many of the western computer manufacturers are closing down or
> selling out their facilities in Russia. Production costs are too high,
> and the quality is still low. A couple of years ago IBM (a pioneer of
> western PCs manufacturing in Russia) closed down their assembly line in
> Zelenograd. Those PCs costed exatly the same as the likes assembled in
> Scotland, but for some reason consumers preferred the latter.
>
The 2/3 number is not an exaggeration. In fact, VIST, the leading
Russian
computer manufacturer, complains that this number underestimates it's
market share. By the way, VIST's factories are in Zelenograd, same town
where IBM closed its assembly line. Not all of the fault here lies with
Russia. Foreign companies lack the experience of doing business there.
They'll learn. Anyway, today's situation is different from 2 years ago.
Computer sales shot up last year, but the foreiner's profits declined.
The bulk of the sales went to the Russians manufacturers, who managed
to convince consumers that 'Russian-made' means 'good'. The consumers
don't 'prefer the latter' anymore.
> You're right, though. One needs to start from somewhere. Just remember
> quality boost never occurs overnight.
>
Neither does it take 'centuries' or 'generations' as some people say.
Having seen 'corporate sharks' up close I drew a conclusion: if these
jokers can do it, so can anybody else. 'Ne bogi gorshki obzhigayut'
Alx
> LO
>
Dmitry Yaitskov
Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
<snip>
> Or take for example Griboedov's home. Bulgakov hates it, but can not
> lie. He shows state's support for writers. He hates it, but he is not a
> philosopher and could be excused. (And he actually was.) If he was alive
> today he would probably teach Russian literature in some third rate
> American colledge (as Evtushenko does) or deliver pizza and empty trash
> cans in New York (as do many less happy but quite talented Russian
> writers do today). For the simple reason - there is no union of writers.
> No state support. No Griboedov's hous.
Have you ever heard of Daniil Harms? He was a writer. Not in the sense
that he was a member of the union of Soviet writers (he was not,
AFAIK), but in the sense that he wrote good books. Do you know how he
died? He was arrested in 1941, and in 1942 he was *forgotten* in a
prison cell, and died of starvation there. Do you mean this kind of
state support? (And of course this is just the first example that came
to my mind - there are lots of others, as I'm sure you know.)
Besides, offering the description of the writers' union in Master &
Margarita as a positive example of the "state's support for writers"
just shows that you totally missed the point of at least this side of
the Bulgakov's novel.
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <344251...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
>
> Russia produces NO computers today.
> You write about "screwdriver technology". Assembling PCs from boards. If
> it means to produce computers them my 3.5 years old kid also can
> "produce computers". It would be fine if computer boards could be mined
> like coal or ores or if it was possible to grow them as potatoes. Until
> you make chips you can talk only about assembly not about manufacturing.
>
> If you do not see the difference remember 10 years ago export of 386
> processors to the USSR was banned. It could be banned every minute now.
> Export of computers, with speed 2 GFlop/sec and more to Russia is
> strictly controlled now. To make it 7 Pentium II 300 would be enough.
> Why does Russia steal such computers instead of making them at home?
> Because it is unable to develop such a computer today even with ready
> made processors.
>
> You might ask where are those guys who developed Russian supercomputer
> Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> their property.
>
Alex, one of your problems is you are eager to discuss and even pass
judgements on the subjects you are absolutely ignorant of, in front of
the professionals. I could have told you what Elbrus really was, I could
have told you this program flopped long before Russian scientists
started leaving the country, but what would be the point? Very
characteristic of someone considering himself an aristocrat. :-)
Lo
Phoenix
Dmitry Yitskov writes--
>
> Have you ever heard of Daniil Harms? He was a writer. Not in the sense
> that he was a member of the union of Soviet writers (he was not,
> AFAIK), but in the sense that he wrote good books. Do you know how he
> died? He was arrested in 1941, and in 1942 he was *forgotten* in a
> prison cell, and died of starvation there. Do you mean this kind of
> state support? (And of course this is just the first example that came
> to my mind - there are lots of others, as I'm sure you know.)
>
Russia? Just to name a few:Valentin Rasputin, Andrey Voznesensky,
Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Bella Akhmadullina, Fazil' Iskander, Viktor
Astafiev, Wasil' Bykov, Andrey Bitov, Mark Lisyansky, etc.
So what is the reason for citing that Daniil Harms was not a member of
the Union of Writers? In fact, he participated in literary organizations
before his arrest. Support for culture is absolutely necessary in
industrialized nations because the masses are liberated and create a
"mass culture," a culture of the uneducated, slavish, peasant-worker
lumpen-proletariat. State support for real art, music, literature,etc.,
is what keeps genuine culture living in the midst of the unenlightened
masses.
Phoenix
Alexandr Stepanov
Dear professional. Your statements sound ambiguous. You agree that
Russia produces computers when it does not produce even calculators. For
some reason you mix Compaq with quality. You tell me that giving 300$
billions away to criminals is better then investing it in R&D at home.
You relay on Bulgakov as a source of ideology and so on. Pitifully these
are not signs of high professionalism or elaborated philosophy. Sure
those are mere symptoms not a diagnosis but this is all information I
have. Would you please provide more? Did you ever develop a single
computer from the scratch? Or may be you have participated in such a
development? I am not afraid of professionals, especially good ones. I
like them. So please go ahead. Shine.
Alex.
M. Papisov
I wrote:
> > Say, I am going to claim that the soviet economy
> > failed because of bad management and low morale (other
problems being
> > secondary). Then, I am going to claim that both bad management
and low
> > morale were inherentely present because of major flaws in the
underlying
> > ideology.
> >
> > Any objections?
In article <34423B...@bcm.tmc.edu>, as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
> Yes. Leave alone morale of workforce. Morale of workforce depends on
> management nearly entirely.
Wrong.
> Look at labs around. The level of each lab is defined entirely by the
> boss. If professor is a great scientist and good boss ALL his students
> are smart and motivated. Not because of selection, but because
of good
> management. Even student of moderate abilities becomes great in good
> lab. Even lazy one gets so excited that works around the clock.
But much
> more frequently careers are killed in bad labs. Even if student works
> around the clock there his chances for great career are zero.
This example has two flaws. First, you are talking about the labs that are
_around_, i.e., labs that function within certain economical and social
infrastructure. Second, you are talking about _students_, which is not a
representative example of the work force.
> The Boss is scarce resurce in any society.
This is correct. But you keep forgetting that and "ideal" society should
(1) allow selection of good managers; (2) give them a lot of tools to
motivate, reward and discipline their people; (3) the people should be
responsive to motivation, rewards and penalties.
> Others mere do what they are told.
It may sound strange to you, but vast majority of "bosses" are supposed to
do exactly what they are told to.
> So leave work force alone. It is nothing you can do to it after
you give
> them highschool, libraries, sport, art, and craft clubs, health
care and
> daycare for their kids, safety, housing.
No way. You should give them a lot of motivation. You should give them a
dream. You should prove that the dream is something realistically
achievable. You should explain them how to get there. You should explain
them all intermediate goals, and produce a plan that explains, step by
step, how you are going to get there. You should prove them that all that
you are going to do is to achieve the goals.
> Now you have to provide for the
> Boss.
(I guess this should read like "now you should give them a good boss".)
Yes, now you should give them managers. But, by this time, your people
should _already know_ where they are going. Otherwise, your managers will
fail to motivate and control people.
> There was the Boss between 1922 and 1953.
And a lot of a (utopian) dream. And a lot of promises (too many did not
come true). And a lot of ultra-tough, ultra-rough management, too often
incompetent and corrupt.
> Then party, KGB and army
> became owners of the counrty and did not allow for the Boss to appear
> for simple reason - there can be only one Boss and no one wants to
> yield. There were Bosses in all these forces, but they had no
chances to
> get on the top.
This is a primitive description of a government crisis. Which is not
something unusual in this world. Democracy was invented, in part, as a way
of solving problems of this kind. Why would you build a system that is so
exceptionally vulnerable? Do you have any cures for this political
hypersensitivity?
> So it is not Communism what failed.
"Communism" suggests developing an ideal society where there is enough of
everything for everybody; money is not needed; everyone works, but only
because he/she wants to, and so on. Is this something that you are going
to try again? If yes, how many people will believe you? If no, what is the
goal for them?
> It is Bossless system. Communism is
> efficien when there is the Boss.
Not enough.
> Capitaslism is inefficient when there
> is no Boss.
The economy of capitalist countries does not depend on personalities of
the presidents so much.
> Efficiency and ideology are two independen variables.
Wrong. Without an ideology you wouldn't even have a scale to measure your
efficiency.
> It is
> the state's task to get the Boss on the top. It is not
ideology's task.
Is there any single state without ideology?
> Ity is state what failed not ideology.
So how about the dream of "communism"? Again, if there is no communism
ahead, what is the goal?
Uspehov™
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <61udk8$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
> >
> > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <61miu9$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> >
> > Russia produces NO computers today.
> > You write about "screwdriver technology". Assembling PCs from boards. If
> > it means to produce computers them my 3.5 years old kid also can
> > "produce computers". It would be fine if computer boards could be mined
> > like coal or ores or if it was possible to grow them as potatoes. Until
> > you make chips you can talk only about assembly not about manufacturing.
> >
> > If you do not see the difference remember 10 years ago export of 386
> > processors to the USSR was banned. It could be banned every minute now.
> > Export of computers, with speed 2 GFlop/sec and more to Russia is
> > strictly controlled now. To make it 7 Pentium II 300 would be enough.
> > Why does Russia steal such computers instead of making them at home?
> > Because it is unable to develop such a computer today even with ready
> > made processors.
> >
supercomputer
> > Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> > Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> > Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> > their property.
> >
>
This logic doesn't follow from Alex's posts. The point is that Russia had
an industrial infrastructure that is flushed down the toilet in the name
of a political change. Pure mental retardation.
> Rome
> was not
> built in one day. Remember, Sony started as a small shop that assembled
> radios
> - and look how it turned out.
The problem with your optimism is that there is no basis to it. EVERY
3rd World country fits this develompment from scratch category. And it
is taking GENERATIONS (talking about wanting things right away) to move
'inches' in growth. Russia has squandered its potential by letting a
bunch of criminals (Yeltsin and co.) to apply dictatorial methods to
'reform' society (so much for democracy--the original excuse).
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <8768185...@dejanews.com>,
> >
>
> >
> > Russia produces NO computers today.
> > You write about "screwdriver technology". Assembling PCs from boards. If
> > it means to produce computers them my 3.5 years old kid also can
> > "produce computers". It would be fine if computer boards could be mined
> > like coal or ores or if it was possible to grow them as potatoes. Until
> > you make chips you can talk only about assembly not about manufacturing.
> >
> > If you do not see the difference remember 10 years ago export of 386
> > processors to the USSR was banned. It could be banned every minute now.
> > Export of computers, with speed 2 GFlop/sec and more to Russia is
> > strictly controlled now. To make it 7 Pentium II 300 would be enough.
> > Why does Russia steal such computers instead of making them at home?
> > Because it is unable to develop such a computer today even with ready
> > made processors.
> >
> > You might ask where are those guys who developed Russian supercomputer
> > Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> > Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> > Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> > their property.
> >
>
> judgements on the subjects you are absolutely ignorant of, in front of
> the professionals. I could have told you what Elbrus really was, I could
> have told you this program flopped long before Russian scientists
> started leaving the country, but what would be the point? Very
> characteristic of someone considering himself an aristocrat. :-)
>
>
Until we see the beef all you are doing is blowing smoke.
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <87zpoh1...@lucy.dima.at.home>,
Dmitry Yaitskov <di...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>
> <snip>
> > use it. Still I feel OK using domestic product.
>
> lines for *any* toilet paper in the 80-ies - and BTW, all of it was
> Russian-made.
I remember this 'proof of Soviet failure' throughout the 80's. Funny how
no one in the West cares about actual shortages that exist now in the
former USSR. Real economists (not media pundits) actually considered
these lines to be due to underpricing and synchronized purchasing
behaviour. Now everything is on display but priced conveniently out of
reach (reminds me of the food and prosperity 'road shows' under Stalin
and Ekaterina staged to propagandize success by flooding a few major
cities with goods).
> > If you are a computer specialist you should know it is not a big deal to
> > write software. Especially this Microsoft supplied sh*t. There is
> > nothing special about it. The problem with personal computers could be
> > attributed to SEV cooperation. USSR is a big country so it builds big
> > computers. Eastern European countries are small so they build personal
> > ones.
>
> I am sorry to say it - but only a person who doesn't have a clue would
> say that writing software is not a big deal. And your argument about
> big vs. small countries and computers reminds me of a joke, which
> translated into English would go sth like this: Long live Soviet
> microcomputers - the biggest microcomputers in the world!
You are clueless to the point he is making. The distribution of computer
manufacturing in the Soviet block was regionally partitioned. This
concentration of production is a strength and a weakness of the command
economy and one of the reasons why dissassembly of the Soviet Union and
its block has been so traumatic.
> > > Last, but not least. You're a funny person. You shift your position all
> > > the time. Today you support the idea of the direct ancient Novgorod-type
> > > democracy, tomorrow you praise Stalin's authoritarianism (if not
> > > dictatorship). Today you select the facts to fit your theories (other
> > > facts are disregarded), tomorrow you make up your facts (e.g. Belorussia
> > > economically doing better than Russia is a made up fact). Nothing is
> > > persistent about you except for youthful aggression, but maybe it's
> > > natural...
> >
> > I do not like democracy, including Novgorod style.
> > It is democracy what produces "ape suits", what makes mice cost 2$ a
> > week for a lab, what forbids experiments with abortion materials, what
> > tries to ban transgenic animals. It is democracy what let people not to
> > study at school for expense of life quality for the rest of their lifes.
> > It is democracy what equals humans and animals.
> > I prefer the power of the best - aristocracy.
>
> ...which equals *some* (bad) humans with animals, while equalling "the
> best" with gods...
>
> Look, are your serious? What you are saying is such pure bullshit that
> I have trouble beleiving in your seriousness, so feel kind of stupid
> arguing with it... The power of the best, my foot.
Western 'democracy' is a placebo to begin with. The West is an
aristocracy by wealth (as opposed to genetics). No government elected in
the West has the final say over the economy--the wishes of the owner
class are always respected even if they conflict with the will of the
majority.
> > Communism was much closer
> > to it then capitalism, especially in Stalin's times. Unions of writers,
> > composers. Huge awards for artists. Free high quality education for all.
> > Free medical care. Cheap books. Communists were interested in developing
> > Russian people. Democracy is not. In Stalin's times volonteers worked to
> > liquidate illiteracy among adults in villages.
>
> You are crazy.
You live in a fantasy world.
> > Today in the US
> > volonteers fight illiteracy in ... American schools. Guess what does
> > democracy need schools for if its volonteers, not teachers fight
> > illiteracy there!
> > But I can lieve with democracy as well. I fact aristocracy can not
> > defeat contemporal Russian criminal oligarchy. Social status of
> > intelligentsia high in communists times is zero now. There no chances
> > for us to be in power. But democracy at least does exist on the paper in
> > Russian constitution. It leaves us some chance to survive. Then it will
> > be easier to find understanding in good citisens then in criminals to
> > reestablish aristocracy.
> > My position is to choose least evel of twoo. So I prefer democracy over
> > oligarchy. It doesn't mean I like it.
> >
> > Alex.
>
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Alexandr Stepanov
AlX wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
> > You might ask where are those guys who developed Russian supercomputer
> > Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> > Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> > Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> > their property.
> >
>
> Alex, the problem with that you want all righ away - ot nothing. Rome
> was not
> built in one day. Remember, Sony started as a small shop that assembled
> radios
> - and look how it turned out.
>
> Alx.
The problem is that Sony started while Russia stopped.
And given this degree of sabotage stopped forever.
Alex.
AlX
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> In article <61udk8$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
> > >
> > > raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <61miu9$6...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> > >
> > > Russia produces NO computers today.
> > > You write about "screwdriver technology". Assembling PCs from boards. If
> > > it means to produce computers them my 3.5 years old kid also can
> > > "produce computers". It would be fine if computer boards could be mined
> > > like coal or ores or if it was possible to grow them as potatoes. Until
> > > you make chips you can talk only about assembly not about manufacturing.
> > >
> > > If you do not see the difference remember 10 years ago export of 386
> > > processors to the USSR was banned. It could be banned every minute now.
> > > Export of computers, with speed 2 GFlop/sec and more to Russia is
> > > strictly controlled now. To make it 7 Pentium II 300 would be enough.
> > > Why does Russia steal such computers instead of making them at home?
> > > Because it is unable to develop such a computer today even with ready
> > > made processors.
> > >
> supercomputer
> > > Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> > > Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> > > Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> > > their property.
> > >
> >
> > Alex, the problem with that you want all righ away - ot nothing.
>
> an industrial infrastructure that is flushed down the toilet in the name
> of a political change. Pure mental retardation.
This great industrial infrastructure did not do Russia much good. Let's
face it, Soviet Union lost economic competiotion. Alex is right, SU
produced some kind of computers, but not nearly as good as the Western
ones.
This was especially true about things that didn't have any military
significance, just improved people's loves.
Capitalism has a build-in feature they call 'constructive destruction'.
When a factory makes something customers don't buy it closed, the
workers are fired, the equipment sold or destroyed. This is the
destructive part. The constructive part is that resourses are freed
and can be used somewhere else. This is a wrenching, but efficient
process. The Soviet system lacked this feature, so the system that
might've been adequate for 1930's failed. It began crumbling long
before Yeltsin, at least since the late 1970's.
In today's Russia the destructive phase is much more apparent then
constructive, but I believe it already ran its course.
>
> > Rome
> > was not
> > built in one day. Remember, Sony started as a small shop that assembled
> > radios
> > - and look how it turned out.
>
> The problem with your optimism is that there is no basis to it. EVERY
> 3rd World country fits this develompment from scratch category. And it
> is taking GENERATIONS (talking about wanting things right away) to move
> 'inches' in growth. Russia has squandered its potential by letting a
> bunch of criminals (Yeltsin and co.) to apply dictatorial methods to
> 'reform' society (so much for democracy--the original excuse).
>
Russia is not a 3rd world country and doesn't start from scratch.
When I hear that something in Russia will take generations, I
always remember all the talk in the late 80's about how it will
take generations for Russians to develop enterpreneurs. In fact,
it took a couple of years.
As for Yeltsins goverment, I wrote about it in my earlier posts
so I'll just repeat the conclusion: bad goverment hurts development
but does not prevent it.
AlX.
Dmitry Yaitskov
Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
> >
> > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> > I am sorry to say it - but only a person who doesn't have a clue would
> > say that writing software is not a big deal. And your argument about
> > big vs. small countries and computers reminds me of a joke, which
> > translated into English would go sth like this: Long live Soviet
> > microcomputers - the biggest microcomputers in the world!
>
> What piece of software causes such a respect? If you have at least MS in
> computer science there should not be any.
Look, what are you trying to say? That writing big programs is easy?
That anybody with MS in computer science could sit down and write MS
Word, Linux or NT in a couple of weeks? It took many man-years of very
skilled work to write all these and thousands of other programs. If
you are saying otherwise you are completely clueless (sorry to repeat
myself). This is not exactly a matter of *respect* - but writing big
programs is definitely not easy.
<snip about aristocracy>
> > Look, are your serious? What you are saying is such pure bullshit that
> > I have trouble beleiving in your seriousness, so feel kind of stupid
> > arguing with it... The power of the best, my foot.
>
> Ask Lena about this. She will make it clear for you. She would equal to
> animals only herself and hanfull of animal rights activists. Rest of us
> are much worse then animals from her point of view.
IIRC, you argument with Lena went like this: she said that animals
have (or rather should have) equal rights with humans, you were saying
that this somehow would mean slavery for humans. As far as I can see,
this has nothing to do with aristocracy. (And my opinion is that
neither of you are right in this particular argument.)
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
Phoenix
Dmitry Yaitskov writes--
> Okay, what about Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy (Lev) etc.? Did they
> manage to become great writers also because of the organization of the
> Soviet writers? Or were they less great than Lisyansky?
As I mentioned before, I believe state support is needed in
industrialized modern nations, where the freed masses are turning it
into a "mass culture," a parody on the REAL culture. Pushkin and
Tolstoy lived well before the impact of democratization of culture was
being felt.
And by the
> way, you forgot to mention such great writers as Brezhnev and other
> party leaders - do you remember book stores literally overflowing with
> their immortal works? While books of writers that you've listed above
> were very difficult to come by...
>
Brezhnev was a politician, not a writer, and he was getting state
support by channels other than Union of Writers. Its characteristic of
all modern societies- look at Reagan's useless memoirs, do you know how
many copies were printed? And how many were sold? Gingrich's books are
also a fine example. Hillary Clinton wrote a book- they printed it. Not
because it is good literature- but because she is the First Lady.
> I am all for state support for arts - provided the said support does
> not promote (rather heavily in too many cases - Harms being just one
> example) a very specific ideology. And besides, such state support
> inevitably transforms into mafia-like war of one clan against all
> intruders.
I agree -ideology should not be promoted by the state through the arts.
However, the state should use the arts to provide the nation with a true
spiritual basis. It has the responsibility to silence those who are
abusing literary techniques by producing anti-human pseudo-artistic
garbage(Limonov, Mamleyev).
> And BTW, even regardless of ideology, in the system that you're
> promoting - who is to decide what is real art, and what is worthless
> 'mass-culture'? God might be a good candidate for this job - but I'm
> afraid he won't be too interested. I cannot think of anybody else
> qualified enough. Can you?
>
Church may be a good spiritual organization to provide arts with an
emphasis on true culture instead of mass culture. And in anticipation of
your comments about the collaboration of the church with soviet state, I
hope that in time its leadership which smeared itself by communist ties,
will change.
Phoenix
Dmitry Yaitskov
Phoenix <vjo...@pitt.edu> writes:
> Dmitry Yitskov writes--
> >
> > Have you ever heard of Daniil Harms? He was a writer. Not in the sense
> > that he was a member of the union of Soviet writers (he was not,
> > AFAIK), but in the sense that he wrote good books. Do you know how he
> > died? He was arrested in 1941, and in 1942 he was *forgotten* in a
> > prison cell, and died of starvation there. Do you mean this kind of
> > state support? (And of course this is just the first example that came
> > to my mind - there are lots of others, as I'm sure you know.)
> >
> Are you suggesting that state support didnt produce great writers in
> Russia? Just to name a few:Valentin Rasputin, Andrey Voznesensky,
> Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Bella Akhmadullina, Fazil' Iskander, Viktor
> Astafiev, Wasil' Bykov, Andrey Bitov, Mark Lisyansky, etc.
Okay, what about Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy (Lev) etc.? Did they
manage to become great writers also because of the organization of the
Soviet writers? Or were they less great than Lisyansky? And by the
way, you forgot to mention such great writers as Brezhnev and other
party leaders - do you remember book stores literally overflowing with
their immortal works? While books of writers that you've listed above
were very difficult to come by...
> So what is the reason for citing that Daniil Harms was not a member of
> the Union of Writers? In fact, he participated in literary organizations
> before his arrest.
The reason for citing Harms was *not* that he was not a member of the
writers' union (my mistake BTW - he was), the reason for citing him
was that the state did not support him, and eventually killed him.
> Support for culture is absolutely necessary in
> industrialized nations because the masses are liberated and create a
> "mass culture," a culture of the uneducated, slavish, peasant-worker
> lumpen-proletariat. State support for real art, music, literature,etc.,
> is what keeps genuine culture living in the midst of the unenlightened
> masses.
>
> Phoenix
I am all for state support for arts - provided the said support does
not promote (rather heavily in too many cases - Harms being just one
example) a very specific ideology. And besides, such state support
inevitably transforms into mafia-like war of one clan against all
intruders.
And BTW, even regardless of ideology, in the system that you're
promoting - who is to decide what is real art, and what is worthless
'mass-culture'? God might be a good candidate for this job - but I'm
afraid he won't be too interested. I cannot think of anybody else
qualified enough. Can you?
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
AlX
Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
>
> Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
>
> > Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
> > >
> > > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> > > I am sorry to say it - but only a person who doesn't have a clue would
> > > say that writing software is not a big deal. And your argument about
> > > big vs. small countries and computers reminds me of a joke, which
> > > translated into English would go sth like this: Long live Soviet
> > > microcomputers - the biggest microcomputers in the world!
> >
> > What piece of software causes such a respect? If you have at least MS in
> > computer science there should not be any.
>
> Look, what are you trying to say? That writing big programs is easy?
> That anybody with MS in computer science could sit down and write MS
> Word, Linux or NT in a couple of weeks? It took many man-years of very
> skilled work to write all these and thousands of other programs. If
> you are saying otherwise you are completely clueless (sorry to repeat
> myself). This is not exactly a matter of *respect* - but writing big
> programs is definitely not easy.
>
I have to agree with Alex Stepanov here. He meant that writing software
is nothing _compared_ to creating of a chip. This is true. No piece
of software ever required such an investment of money, time and
scientific effort.
Alx.
> --
> Cheers,
> -Dima.
Dmitry Yaitskov
AlX <ti...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
<snip>
> I have to agree with Alex Stepanov here. He meant that writing software
> is nothing _compared_ to creating of a chip. This is true. No piece
> of software ever required such an investment of money, time and
> scientific effort.
How do you know? I would say that the effort required to make an os
like NT for example would be comparable to that required to make a
chip to run this os on. And BTW compare retail prices of a Pentium
chip and of NT 4.- they are pretty close. For want of better real
facts in support of either theory, this makes it a draw.
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
Dmitry Yaitskov
Phoenix <vjo...@pitt.edu> writes:
> Dmitry Yaitskov writes--
> > Okay, what about Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy (Lev) etc.? Did they
> > manage to become great writers also because of the organization of the
> > Soviet writers? Or were they less great than Lisyansky?
>
> As I mentioned before, I believe state support is needed in
> industrialized modern nations, where the freed masses are turning it
> into a "mass culture," a parody on the REAL culture. Pushkin and
> Tolstoy lived well before the impact of democratization of culture was
> being felt.
The main thing that I don't like about your point of view here is that
it requires a kind of a 'Big Brother' who knows better than the 'masses'.
<insightful discussion about relative merits of literary talents of
Brezhnev vs. Gingrich snipped>
> > I am all for state support for arts - provided the said support does
> > not promote (rather heavily in too many cases - Harms being just one
> > example) a very specific ideology. And besides, such state support
> > inevitably transforms into mafia-like war of one clan against all
> > intruders.
>
> I agree -ideology should not be promoted by the state through the arts.
> However, the state should use the arts to provide the nation with a true
> spiritual basis. It has the responsibility to silence those who are
> abusing literary techniques by producing anti-human pseudo-artistic
> garbage(Limonov, Mamleyev).
I don't like Limonov - but I beleive in free speech. It is his right
to write whatever he wants to. Okay, there are limits to free speech
set forth in the criminal law - but they have nothing to do with the
artistic value of a piece of literature (or pseudo-literature).
> > And BTW, even regardless of ideology, in the system that you're
> > promoting - who is to decide what is real art, and what is worthless
> > 'mass-culture'? God might be a good candidate for this job - but I'm
> > afraid he won't be too interested. I cannot think of anybody else
> > qualified enough. Can you?
> >
>
> Church may be a good spiritual organization to provide arts with an
> emphasis on true culture instead of mass culture. And in anticipation of
> your comments about the collaboration of the church with soviet state, I
> hope that in time its leadership which smeared itself by communist ties,
> will change.
Okay, let's let alone the (hopefully gone) collaboration of the church
with the soviet state (also hopefully gone forever). But may I ask
what church should bear the burden of censorship (and that is what in
effect you are suggesting)? Russian Orthodox? Buddhist? Moslem?
Judaic? I, for example, do not belong to either - why should some
church which I don't care for (and that makes it any church) decide
what is good for me?
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
"I profoundly believe it takes a lot of practice to become a moral
slob."
-- William F. Buckley
Phoenix
Lena wrote:
> I am impressed!
> Keep on, say more about it, our "Big Brother".
>
> Is it Stepanov again with his brilliant but sort of "bearded" ideas?
>
> Yelena.
Lena, I am willing to participate in a productive, good-mannered
discussion with you on the subject. However, I cannot understand the
spitefulness and the mean-spirited nature of your comments.
If you are serious about the subject we are discussing, you are welcome
to join in, but displays of unsubstantiated and vicious comments are
unnecessary. BTW, I am not Stepanov.
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
AlX wrote:
>
> Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
> >
> > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alexandr Stepanov <as69...@bcm.tmc.edu> writes:
> > > > I am sorry to say it - but only a person who doesn't have a clue would
> > > > say that writing software is not a big deal. And your argument about
> > > > big vs. small countries and computers reminds me of a joke, which
> > > > translated into English would go sth like this: Long live Soviet
> > > > microcomputers - the biggest microcomputers in the world!
> > >
> > > What piece of software causes such a respect? If you have at least MS in
> > > computer science there should not be any.
> >
> > Look, what are you trying to say? That writing big programs is easy?
> > That anybody with MS in computer science could sit down and write MS
> > Word, Linux or NT in a couple of weeks? It took many man-years of very
> > skilled work to write all these and thousands of other programs. If
> > you are saying otherwise you are completely clueless (sorry to repeat
> > myself). This is not exactly a matter of *respect* - but writing big
> > programs is definitely not easy.
> >
>
> is nothing _compared_ to creating of a chip. This is true. No piece
> of software ever required such an investment of money, time and
> scientific effort.
>
Development of the MVS operating system cost IBM about 10 billion (not
million) dollars, but that's just another example. If you are one of
those who thinks a new Intel processor and Win95 is all that's needed to
run computer systems (e.g. ticket reservations, banking systems, hotel
chains, supermarket chains, etc.), it's high time you read something on
the subject. I also can refer you to IDC reports on the cost of system
ownership (do you know what it is?), HW representing only 10% of it, the
rest split between SW and support (the latter for the most part
compensating the SW deficiencies). Relative HW/SW/Support costs represent
the original effort invested into each of those areas.
But really, I'm not keen on reading 'likbez' lectures to computer
systems illiterates. Lots of people have never seen a computer - and feel
just fine. If anybody thinks the moon is made of green cheese, it's his
business , only it's a bit ridiculous trying to pass such judgements in
serious discussions (not that I consider this one serious).
Lo
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <8768652...@dejanews.com>,
> > was not
> > built in one day. Remember, Sony started as a small shop that assembled
> > radios
> > - and look how it turned out.
>
> The problem with your optimism is that there is no basis to it. EVERY
> 3rd World country fits this develompment from scratch category. And it
> is taking GENERATIONS (talking about wanting things right away) to move
> 'inches' in growth. Russia has squandered its potential by letting a
> bunch of criminals (Yeltsin and co.) to apply dictatorial methods to
> 'reform' society (so much for democracy--the original excuse).
>
Perhaps, you should speak to Alx. He maintains Russian computer
manufacturers already have 2/3s of the Russian PC market and expects
Russia turning into a developed state in 10-15 years.
kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca
In article <6212o8$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> kir...@chinook.physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
> >
> > In article <61udk8$c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> > ti...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex, the problem with that you want all righ away - ot nothing.
> >
> > This logic doesn't follow from Alex's posts. The point is that Russia had
> > an industrial infrastructure that is flushed down the toilet in the name
> > of a political change. Pure mental retardation.
>
> face it, Soviet Union lost economic competiotion.
This is besides the point. Economic reform doesn't mean a destruction of
the existing infrastructure and a restart from scratch. This approach is
very primitive and typical of Stalinism (I guess this isn't surprising
since Yeltsin and others are all party insiders and have a certain
mentality and reflexes conditioned by the old system).
> Alex is right, SU
> produced some kind of computers, but not nearly as good as the Western
> ones.
So in your view no Russian microprocessor develompment is better than one
which is behind but at least has the potential to catch up? I have a
really hard time taking seriously (even though there are tragic
consequences) some of the 'reforms' implemented in Russia. For example,
the dismemberment of state farms. What lunacy. Instead of privatizing
the whole operation (BTW, there has been a sort of 'collectivization' in
the West in the past 60 years where the number of family farms has
declined dramatically and there are many more corporate farms) it is
broken up to be left in the hands of people who can't even get loans from
the banksters for equipment. Real smart policy. Real smart.
> This was especially true about things that didn't have any military
> significance, just improved people's loves.
>
> Capitalism has a build-in feature they call 'constructive destruction'.
> When a factory makes something customers don't buy it closed, the
> workers are fired, the equipment sold or destroyed. This is the
> destructive part. The constructive part is that resourses are freed
> and can be used somewhere else.
I am tempted to call this 'zero-sum-thinking'. But I won't.
> This is a wrenching, but efficient
> process. The Soviet system lacked this feature, so the system that
> might've been adequate for 1930's failed. It began crumbling long
> before Yeltsin, at least since the late 1970's.
Again, there is no equivalence between the need to change the
macro-economy and destruction of the micro-economy. Unlike the Asian
tigers, Russia was too stupid to see the need to protect its domestic
producers and allowed foreign products to flood in and put them out of
business. Instant gratification of 'Western quality' demands is not a
strategy for long term success. People in Japan and South Korea (and
Europe for that matter) had to live with substandard domestic goods, but
none of them are sorry now.
> In today's Russia the destructive phase is much more apparent then
> constructive, but I believe it already ran its course.
The question is how long will the recovery take, another 70 years? It's
the same 'communism in the future is our goal' crap that Russia has been
living through for most of this century. It is nauseating to see the
same lame-ass managers and apparatchiks 'guiding' Russia today that were
10 years ago. Russia needs more than 'born again capitalists'.
> >
> > > Rome
> > > was not
> > > built in one day. Remember, Sony started as a small shop that assembled
> > > radios
> > > - and look how it turned out.
> >
> > The problem with your optimism is that there is no basis to it. EVERY
> > 3rd World country fits this develompment from scratch category. And it
> > is taking GENERATIONS (talking about wanting things right away) to move
> > 'inches' in growth. Russia has squandered its potential by letting a
> > bunch of criminals (Yeltsin and co.) to apply dictatorial methods to
> > 'reform' society (so much for democracy--the original excuse).
> >
>
> Russia is not a 3rd world country and doesn't start from scratch.
Most of the remaining 50% percent of the original per capita GDP is in
sectors of the economy that exist in most 3rd World countries. Most of
what has distinguished Russia from these countries has been lost.
> When I hear that something in Russia will take generations, I
> always remember all the talk in the late 80's about how it will
> take generations for Russians to develop enterpreneurs. In fact,
> it took a couple of years.
Enterpreneurs exist in every 3rd World country...so what? I think it is
this self organizing chaotic system voodoo that is confusing Russians
today like communism did 80 years ago. It sure as hell won't take 2
years for Russia to rebuild itself using merchants and speculators. They
focus on the easy money and have quite successfully converted the country
into a resource extraction, foreign goods import regime that exists in
most 3rd World countries. I see a sort of steady state developing as
Russians accept their new lot as subsistence survivors.
Phoenix
Dmitry Yaitskov writes--
>
> The main thing that I don't like about your point of view here is that
> it requires a kind of a 'Big Brother' who knows better than the 'masses'.
It is better to have a "Big Brother" approach to art than having a
"little man" mold genuine culture into the garbage produced by Hollywood
and printed by dozens of publishing houses in Russia.
> <insightful discussion about relative merits of literary talents of
> Brezhnev vs. Gingrich snipped>
Neither of them had any literary talent- nor do they have to- they are
politicians, not writers.
> I don't like Limonov - but I beleive in free speech. It is his right
> to write whatever he wants to. Okay, there are limits to free speech
> set forth in the criminal law - but they have nothing to do with the
> artistic value of a piece of literature (or pseudo-literature).
So you believe that decadent Brenner should be allowed to perform sexual
acts in fron of a church? That students should be handed out condoms in
schools and taught about the "positive" nature of homosexual perverts?
Morality is not relative. That is the main point of dissatisfaction of
all "post-%$#@*". Man does not define what is moral and what is not.
These feelings are intuitive and present to a degree in every culture.
The new process of degrading these principles by relaxing the filters of
cultural activity has already led to a catastrophe of the Western
civilization.
> Okay, let's let alone the (hopefully gone) collaboration of the church
> with the soviet state (also hopefully gone forever). But may I ask
> what church should bear the burden of censorship (and that is what in
> effect you are suggesting)? Russian Orthodox? Buddhist? Moslem?
> Judaic? I, for example, do not belong to either - why should some
> church which I don't care for (and that makes it any church) decide
> what is good for me?
Did you decide where you would be born, into what family? Do you feel
you have a right to disobey laws because you did not write them? The
notion that a human being has the prime option of following a separate
path which is at the same time as correct as paths chosen by other
individuals is preposterous. Individualism allows only for
minute(comparatively) variations in the life of different people. The
Russian Orthodox church encompasses more than 80% of the population of
Russia(majority of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Mordovians,
Udmurts, Chuvash, Karelians, Ossetians, Georgians, about 20 percent of
Mari, 10% of Jews, and many others). Therefore, it has the right to
impose the true dogma on a population already receptive to this
spiritual message. Other religious organizations that espouse Buddhist,
Moslem, Judaic, pagan beliefs are in a position to yield to the Orthodox
Church. It doesnt, however, mean that they would face persecution.
raik...@midas-kapiti.com
In article <344374...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> raik...@midas-kapiti.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <344251...@bcm.tmc.edu>,
> > as69...@bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> > > You might ask where are those guys who developed Russian supercomputer
> > > Elbrus. Why they can not do it? They drive taxi to earn living. Why?
> > > Because son of professor working for CIA special school Bojko heads
> > > Russia's property commitee. He takes great care to keep Russians out of
> > > their property.
> > >
> >
> > judgements on the subjects you are absolutely ignorant of, in front of
> > the professionals. I could have told you what Elbrus really was, I could
> > have told you this program flopped long before Russian scientists
> > started leaving the country, but what would be the point? Very
> > characteristic of someone considering himself an aristocrat. :-)
>
> Russia produces computers when it does not produce even calculators.
I never said Russia manufactured computers on a large scale. You're
confusing me with Alx.
> For
> some reason you mix Compaq with quality.
Strange as it might seem, Compaq means quality in the PC market. Please,
bear in mind that PCs by default is mass production and their quality can
not be compared to even that of midrange computers.
> You tell me that giving 300$
> billions away to criminals is better then investing it in R&D at home.
I don't. What I, nevertheless, do tell is I would vote for it if you
could find a painless way to get there (no new revolutions, please).
> You relay on Bulgakov as a source of ideology and so on.
I only quoted prof. Preobrazhensky, but you're right, my philosophy is
work hard, be innovative - and it will pay. But mind you, it's a
philosophy, not a recipe. I never said it pays for everyone.
> Pitifully these
> are not signs of high professionalism or elaborated philosophy.
Hmm, what are they signs of?
> Sure those are mere symptoms not a diagnosis but this is all information I
> have. Would you please provide more? Did you ever develop a single
> computer from the scratch?
No one in his right mind would do that today. There are hardware
designers, microcode designers, SW designers, programmers, managers,
consultants, etc. etc. etc. My profession is computer systems, I know a
little of how HW hangs together, a lot of how microcode works (it's the
thing that apart from anything else helps different pieces of HW in a
computer design talk to each other), alot of how to design and write SW,
a lot of the way networks operate, a lot of commercial applications
design. Yes, I participated in microcode development, operating systems
components development, applications SW development, and I did a lot of
things from scratch. What is more important, I spent umpteen how many
years studying computer science.
> Or may be you have participated in such a
> development? I am not afraid of professionals, especially good ones. I
> like them. So please go ahead. Shine.
>
> Alex.
I don't actually know why I write all this. Boredom, I think, is as close
as you can get. As far as shining is concerned, I'm past my prime.
Lo
M. Papisov
>BTW, I am not Stepanov.
Do I hear a motorcycle, ili eto steklo takoe? :)
Alexandr Stepanov
M. Papisov wrote:
>
> > Look at labs around. The level of each lab is defined entirely by the
> > boss. If professor is a great scientist and good boss ALL his students
> > are smart and motivated. Not because of selection, but because
> of good
> > management. Even student of moderate abilities becomes great in good
> > lab. Even lazy one gets so excited that works around the clock.
> But much
> > more frequently careers are killed in bad labs. Even if student works
> > around the clock there his chances for great career are zero.
>
> This example has two flaws. First, you are talking about the labs that are
> _around_, i.e., labs that function within certain economical and social
> infrastructure. Second, you are talking about _students_, which is not a
> representative example of the work force.
It has flaws, not crucial though. All labs finance themselve, some of
them independently of government money - so they could be compared to
companies. Students are quite an interesting type of workforce. They are
not financially motivated - stipend is the same for all. It is careere
what matters. That is why I think grad. students in the US is the
closest approximation of workforce in socialist countries.
To me US grad. school pretty much resembles GRU as described in
Suvorov's aquarium but without dramatic effects.
> > The Boss is scarce resurce in any society.
>
> This is correct. But you keep forgetting that and "ideal" society should
> (1) allow selection of good managers; (2) give them a lot of tools to
> motivate, reward and discipline their people; (3) the people should be
> responsive to motivation, rewards and penalties.
Selection of good managers is not impossible if socialist state really
wants something to be done. Lebedev, Iljushin, Kurchatov, Korolev,
Jukov. I shouldn't probably list them all. The problem is for the state
to want something. This become the problem after 1953, and this is the
problem of choosing ONE good manadger.
I do not have much experience with Russian workforce so I find myself
too much referencing opinions of other people. My grandma graduated from
the colledge after the war. It was hard for her to make railroad
construction team work ... untill first payday. When they have got
sallary for two days instead of two weeks they didn't even argue a lot
and turned if not in a dream team then at least in a very motivated
team. People in industrial centers like Norilsk also were quite
motivated to earn money for an apartment in Moscow and country home in
Cremea or North Caucasus.
Suvorov described how he managed to control his soldiers without any
means of discipline or rewarding his people.
>
> > Others mere do what they are told.
>
> It may sound strange to you, but vast majority of "bosses" are supposed to
> do exactly what they are told to.
It is not strange at all. We do not want IRS bosses to be excessively
creative. There are quire many places where burocracy is desirable. The
problem is that it is quite hard to find people befitting creative jobs.
So even largest companies have to compromise all of the time.
>
> > So leave work force alone. It is nothing you can do to it after
> you give
> > them highschool, libraries, sport, art, and craft clubs, health
> care and
> > daycare for their kids, safety, housing.
>
> No way. You should give them a lot of motivation. You should give them a
> dream. You should prove that the dream is something realistically
> achievable. You should explain them how to get there. You should explain
> them all intermediate goals, and produce a plan that explains, step by
> step, how you are going to get there. You should prove them that all that
> you are going to do is to achieve the goals.
All this is responsibility of the manager. At least in my experience.
It is one of Baylor's Bosses who furnish all this to me. Sure state
could help managers in this supporting culture, providing ideological
recipies, but it is always up to boss to decide how to lead his team and
it is always responsibility of the boss to make his people believe in
his ability to reach the aim to keep team motivated and working hard and
efficiently so on.
>
> > Now you have to provide for the
> > Boss.
> (I guess this should read like "now you should give them a good boss".)
>
> Yes, now you should give them managers. But, by this time, your people
> should _already know_ where they are going. Otherwise, your managers will
> fail to motivate and control people.
I have alredy wrote, and you have agreed - Good Bosses is a scarce
resource. Thousands of labs and companies do not survive due to this.
Thousands officers drink themselve to death due to this. Millions of
soldiers die due to this. Billions of dollars are wasted due to this.
But the only thing state could do about this is to prepare more good
managers. And top managers should help their subordinates, share their
experience. (Suvorov wrote that each officer discovered for himself
technicks of personell control and virtually never share them to others
due to competition).
> > There was the Boss between 1922 and 1953.
>
> And a lot of a (utopian) dream. And a lot of promises (too many did not
> come true). And a lot of ultra-tough, ultra-rough management, too often
> incompetent and corrupt.
It looks to me you have started from positive factors (pretty weak) and
ended with negative (pretty strong). So in an equation
Success = Boss + (utopean dream) - (corrupt management and so on)
impact of the Boss gets even weight. Was it your idea?
>
> > Then party, KGB and army
> > became owners of the counrty and did not allow for the Boss to appear
> > for simple reason - there can be only one Boss and no one wants to
> > yield. There were Bosses in all these forces, but they had no
> chances to
> > get on the top.
>
> This is a primitive description of a government crisis. Which is not
> something unusual in this world. Democracy was invented, in part, as a way
> of solving problems of this kind. Why would you build a system that is so
> exceptionally vulnerable? Do you have any cures for this political
> hypersensitivity?
There are ready made state structures and mechanisms of their self
ajustment. I am working on it for fun now. Democracy looks attractive
but not in todays version with American political advertisement style
designed for "gut voting" spreading around the world.
> > So it is not Communism what failed.
>
> "Communism" suggests developing an ideal society where there is enough of
> everything for everybody; money is not needed; everyone works, but only
> because he/she wants to, and so on. Is this something that you are going
> to try again? If yes, how many people will believe you? If no, what is the
> goal for them?
People's believes is a really fascinating thing. (Thanks a lot for
giving me direction). I have not tried to construct believes purposedly.
I am observing how others do it. As a biologtist and computer hobbist I
do not believe in cognitive misers. Motivated tactician is my working
model. Both the "motivated tacticians" and real aims of "motivated
strategist" (later is my own term describing those misleading and using
former) attract my acute interest. How diverse and unpredictable are
individual tactics and how well do they sum for benefit of the
"strategist". Thermodynaic!
I will probably newer start my own game, but it is interesting to spoil
game for others. Do you know something in this genre?
>
> > It is Bossless system. Communism is
> > efficien when there is the Boss.
>
> Not enough.
You think way Russia passed between 1922 and 1953 is not big enough?
For some reason I always remember Iraq ambulances that stay idle now
because tire export to Iraq is prohibited by international sanctions.
Russia solved this problem in mere 15 years and forever. And not only
this one, you know.
>
> > Capitaslism is inefficient when there
> > is no Boss.
>
> The economy of capitalist countries does not depend on personalities of
> the presidents so much.
"Chicken in every pot"?
I agree there is some decentralisation that makes management relkated
catastrophes local. Who cares if couple of big companies collapse due to
bad management if several other remain afloat. Still quite a bit depends
on the personality of the president.
> > Efficiency and ideology are two independen variables.
>
> Wrong. Without an ideology you wouldn't even have a scale to measure your
> efficiency.
A chto u Udava vobshe ne bilo dlini poka Popugaj ne dogadals'a kak ee
izmer'at'? Ili Vi imeete v vidu chto to bolee glubinnoe? Po moemu esli
za granicej teb'a interesujut tol'ko pl'aji i dostoprimechatel'nosti eto
dostatochno horoshij priznak. Konechno kuril'shika opiuma mojet ne
interesovat' daje pl'aj, no tut uj ochen' osobaja ideologija.
> > It is
> > the state's task to get the Boss on the top. It is not
> ideology's task.
>
> Is there any single state without ideology?
I remember TV show where soviet journalists gave "Declaration of
Independence" to people on the streets of Phyladelphia. Few percents
recognised it. about half called it communist propaganda and little bit
more then 10% treatened to call the police.
So oficial ideology is fake. There are many real ideologies based on
interests of small groups in power. There are even more sponsored
"ideologies for dummies", there are ideology of commercial ads, and
there is nation wide ideology cultivated before going to the war. So
many of them. And all of them to make majority sacrifice its rights,
money, time, lifes in favor of tiny minority. Democracy is freedom and
minority is free to exploit and manipulate majority.
> > Ity is state what failed not ideology.
>
> So how about the dream of "communism"? Again, if there is no communism
> ahead, what is the goal?
You want an idol? Or things just do not work without an idol?
OK, lets condense one.
The aim is to enable every person to develop as far as possible.
To make every life as satisfying as possible.
To let every person believe itself and fear no problems.
Alex.
Alexandr Stepanov
Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
>
> Okay, what about Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy (Lev) etc.? Did they
> manage to become great writers also because of the organization of the
> Soviet writers?
"U nas poeti sami gospoda." (AC Pushkin "Malen'kie tragedii")
> I am all for state support for arts - provided the said support does
> not promote (rather heavily in too many cases - Harms being just one
> example) a very specific ideology. And besides, such state support
> inevitably transforms into mafia-like war of one clan against all
> intruders.
>
> And BTW, even regardless of ideology, in the system that you're
> promoting - who is to decide what is real art, and what is worthless
> 'mass-culture'? God might be a good candidate for this job - but I'm
> afraid he won't be too interested. I cannot think of anybody else
> qualified enough. Can you?
>
In the US the same system is used to finance science. It is called Peer
review. Sure if there is lack of funding such system doesn't work. It
also failes if the state is not much interested in it.
Alex.
L.Gordeev
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Alexandr Stepanov wrote:
> Dmitry Yaitskov wrote:
> >
> > Okay, what about Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy (Lev) etc.? Did they
> > manage to become great writers also because of the organization of the
> > Soviet writers?
> [deleted]
> In the US the same system is used to finance science. It is called Peer
> review. ...
The logic is wrong. Writers are no scientists. Surely, some censorship is
necessary in science and engineering, though not too much in the former case.
In fact, even now, in the USA, scientific censorship is too rigid on the
one hand and too partizan on the other hand. Sorry, gentlemen, this thread
looks like a 1.000.000-th repetition of Plato.
Democracy or Tyranny, this is the question!
Let me recall his (Plato's) conclusion: Of course, Tyranny is better,
provided that the Tyrant is perfect. And our dilemma is just the same as
Plato's: where come those perfect tyrants from? Probably nowhere. That Soviet
tyrants weren't perfect is obvious. The current Russian President is not
perfect either :-) I guess that the last temptation to find a solution ended
with Napoleon (= Nostradamus' First Antichrist) who was often praised (till
his Russian debacle of course) as a kind of perfect tyrant.
L.G
Phoenix
Lena wrote:
> > If you are serious about the subject we are discussing, you are welcome
> > to join in, but displays of unsubstantiated and vicious comments are
> > unnecessary. BTW, I am not Stepanov.
> >
> OK. Let's begin with you name for starters.
>
> Yelena.
Ok:)) My name is Victor. I hope this satisfies your quest for
knowledge.:)) Do you wish to get on to the subject now that my
credentials have been established?