Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To begin with - I have hard time grasping the concept of raising the animal from the baby stage and then slaughtering it for food. They way it's done in the village. I think I'd turn to fish and mushrooms, kinda
But that's beyond point.
The main point however is that there are a lot of the *locals* living in that village side by side with Russians. Bashkirs in this case - I was trying to figure out the language they spoke - it sounded unfamiliar to me, but then the narrators said they were Bashkirs. But when it comes to ETHNIC RUSSIANS - they seem to be moving to towns and Russian villages are actually dying out in droves.
Like that ethnic Russian girl whom they ask what she is planning to do after graduating school. She is planning to enter some University ( in some big city I would think,) so what are the chances she will come back to her village? Capitalism American style is destroying the original style of Russian life, its destroying the villagers/small town dwellers instead of improving their lot comparably to Soviet times. So Russia is becoming more and more depopulated and is selling its lands to China now. Overall I'd say that capitalism American style is as destructive to Russia, as socialism Soviet style would have been destructive to America.
I can somewhat agree with this. To get the best outcome you need to mix the two styles together. Pure capitalism is destructive as it essentially ensures that power remains in corporate hands whereas socialism ensures that it remains in government ones. Ironically, you get the same outcome as in both scenarios power becomes concentrated in too few hands.
Capitalism needs to be regulated to avoid things like the Crash of 1929, but also to ensure that small enterprise can thrive, which I believe is a problem in the States these days. Socialism is just not competitive enough as the means of production are determined by the government, which becomes problematic in a global economy as the market is too inward.
As to your comment about the death of rural life in Russia? That has it's origins in Stalin's collectivization program. By turning the SU into an industrial power, he effectively signed the death warrant on rural life. In today's world it makes sense that a career driven individual will seek urban centers as they offer more. It's not like Russia doesn't have a big selection to choose from. If they don't want to go to Moscow, then they've got places like St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Vladivostok, Kazan... to pick.
Nuland, Obama, Bush, Bush2, CIA, FBI, Soros, Pu**y Riot, Nemtsov, Catholicism, Protestantism and all others paid money to every western neighbour to Russia in order to hate it. Russia has never done anything wrong, it's a virginal victim who only gets invaded. Did I already mention that Russia never does anything wrong?
What makes me think is that if Russians are so susceptible to foreign influence, doesn't it undermine the intelligence of the Russian populace? Like when the Soviet Union fell, the Russian people were just paid off by Soros and the CIA to make Russian oligarchs filthy rich and the people were ok with it?
They were not necessarily "OK" with it ( at least those that were close to the epicenter of events.)
Remember the video I posted many times before?
Those were the people who stepped forward to defend the parliament, shelled by Yeltsin ( with American backing.) However there were not too many of them, because the rest of Moscow was confused by the whole political situation, not knowing whose side to take. And Americans kept on using this trust of population invested in Yeltsin.
Quote:
Even if it was true, what self-respecting country would allow that to itself? For example if Soros and the CIA would try to take over Sweden, the Swedes would say hell no and fight to the death.
I think that Russians proved over and over again through history that they are good at "fighting to death" an enemy face to face in the battle field. They were simply not familiar with a new enemy that comes within invisible, and takes over the banking system and the rest; no guns and tanks are needed.
Quote:
If Russians are just "innocent victims" of the collapse of the USSR, doesn't this speak in favour of the nazi idea that the Russians are "untermensch" who can't even control their own country?
To begin with - PART of Russians are not the "innocent victims," since they collaborated with the enemy, not only opening the gate to the "Trojan Horse," but directly benefiting from it. (And that's the most rotten part of Russians by the way.)
As for the rest - it simply takes time for them to sort things out, but once they do... They take care of business and then some more - the nazi were yet to learn it first hand.
Quote:
I'm from a small country, but I would find it deeply depressing and embarrassing if we would blame the US/USSR/Germany/Sweden for all misery we faced. But no, we are not Slavs who love to bathe in their own self-pity.
That's correct.
Finns are not that significant nation, to go through all the "trials and tribulations" - the way Russians do.
[quote=erasure;50986138]I'd be fidgeting too - you see in what situation he is, and why he has to make so many explanations, instead of replying with one sentence.
If I'd have to go through all these explanations ( and there is NO way around it,) I'd be aware that Putin's spin doctors will try to twist and turn my every word.
( Which they do, of course. The Putin's media propaganda indeed already turned Grudinin into the much -hated "oligarch" with money kept in "offshore accounts." Which of course is one big lie, but hey, that's how propaganda machine works. And now it's in full swing, since Putin's camp is REALLY concerened about Grudinin's growing popularity.)
Here he is talking about his accounts and his salary ( in rubles.)
Now do these figures really make him "$$$ millionaire?" I have no idea. It doesn't look like he has any body guards either. He is saying that politicians shouldn't be afraid of their own constituents))) " - erasure
At current rate of 48 rubles per $:
his salary 157000000rub /6yrs = 26000000 rub or 541000 ($)
money in European banks 25000000 rub or 520833 ($)
"auction papers"
13000000 rub or 270833 ($)
"dostatochno krupnaya summa
v Sberbanke " /"quite a large sum in Sberbank" ???
- Grudinin
TOTAL 64000000 (rub) or 1333333 (1.3mln$)
i.e.low estimate, but let's assume that he podaril/gave realative $520833 (-) and Sberbank sum is also around 520833(+), another words cancel each other - still at least 1.3 mln $ left just in money, not counting real estate in Russia or Europe
Not having body guards and walking around is suicide.
Those assassins that he should be beware of are bandits and criminals not his "constituents"
Last edited by Straight Arrow; 02-10-2018 at 07:38 PM..
Norway, Sweden and Finland pitched in by helping a lot of St Petersburg orphans. Between them they took in many thousands. I've never found anything on the internet about it but I read it in a book many years ago. Russia was in a bad state and many of these children were most likely saved on top of it.
Ari. Can you find anything on this? I know it happened.
The Sweden and Finland were in between 2 great powers and Hitler proposed invading Sweden at one point, They didn't want anything to do with the war and took the best course they coud see.
I don't think Soviets would give up anybody to Norway, Sweden or Finland - they were considered collaborators. I seriously doubt that any children were saved.
I know that some Jews were transported to those countries and were saved. Do not remember the number.
I can somewhat agree with this. To get the best outcome you need to mix the two styles together. Pure capitalism is destructive as it essentially ensures that power remains in corporate hands whereas socialism ensures that it remains in government ones. Ironically, you get the same outcome as in both scenarios power becomes concentrated in too few hands.
Capitalism needs to be regulated to avoid things like the Crash of 1929, but also to ensure that small enterprise can thrive, which I believe is a problem in the States these days. Socialism is just not competitive enough as the means of production are determined by the government, which becomes problematic in a global economy as the market is too inward.
Knowing everything I know about the Soviet Union, I am totally convinced that the reason it REALLY crashed, was the stubborn refusal of Soviet leaders to allow the private sector coexist along the government sector.
On another hand, they were apparently afraid to let the "bacilli of cupidity" into the country, since it was so destructive for society during Imperial times.
Quote:
As to your comment about the death of rural life in Russia? That has it's origins in Stalin's collectivization program. By turning the SU into an industrial power, he effectively signed the death warrant on rural life.
Well this is a misconception.
When Stalin was conducting his rapid industrialization, he STILL NEEDED people in the country side, just NOT AS MANY as it used to be there before. (Tzarist Russia was what? about 80% agrarian?) So Stalin was accomplishing in a rapid and forceful manner what the Empire couldn't accomplish in a natural way and in a timely manner. All this transformation of the peasantry into qualified workforce in the cities, ( the way it happened in Western part of Europe,) with reasonable amount of people left behind in the country side.
And in fact he FORCIBLY kept part of peasantry in villages ( they couldn't get their passports to move out of there.) So no, during Stalin's times there were still enough of people in rural areas.
Their next big "migration" to cities happened already in Khrushev times, at the beginning of the 60ies.
They were still there throughout Brezhnev times, but it was the post-Soviet, capitalist Russia that really finished them off.
Quote:
In today's world it makes sense that a career driven individual will seek urban centers as they offer more. It's not like Russia doesn't have a big selection to choose from. If they don't want to go to Moscow, then they've got places like St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Vladivostok, Kazan... to pick.
We are not talking about the "career driven people" - obviously they need to move to the cities, but Russians for the most part originally are country-side dwellers; they are hardy people, that like to live on their land, close to the nature. It's in their "blood and veins."
I can see even on-line how ( unfamiliar to me) people are discussing such opportunities ( or rather lack of thereof.)
I'd be fidgeting too - you see in what situation he is, and why he has to make so many explanations, instead of replying with one sentence.
If I'd have to go through all these explanations ( and there is NO way around it,) I'd be aware that Putin's spin doctors will try to twist and turn my every word.
( Which they do, of course. The Putin's media propaganda indeed already turned Grudinin into the much -hated "oligarch" with money kept in "offshore accounts." Which of course is one big lie, but hey, that's how propaganda machine works. And now it's in full swing, since Putin's camp is REALLY concerened about Grudinin's growing popularity.)
Here he is talking about his accounts and his salary ( in rubles.)
Now do these figures really make him "$$$ millionaire?" I have no idea. It doesn't look like he has any body guards either. He is saying that politicians shouldn't be afraid of their own constituents))) " - erasure
At current rate of 48 rubles per $:
his salary 157000000rub /6yrs = 26000000 rub or 541000 ($)
money in European banks 25000000 rub or 520833 ($)
"auction papers"
13000000 rub or 270833 ($)
"dostatochno krupnaya summa
v Sberbanke " /"quite a large sum in Sberbank" ???
- Grudinin
TOTAL 64000000 (rub) or 1333333 (1.3mln$)
i.e.low estimate, but let's assume that he podaril/gave realative $520833 (-) and Sberbank sum is also around 520833(+), another words cancel each other - still at least 1.3 mln $ left just in money, not counting real estate in Russia or Europe
Thanks for all the calculations - then it looks like he DOES have a $ million or so?
But as you can see, he is not making secrets out of it, and if anything were fishy, Zyuganov wouldn't have nominated him.
As far as I know, he doesn't have any property in Europe ( although Russian media is trying to ascribe to him some property in Spain.) he lives in his own Sovkhoz, in the same building where his workers live, and obviously he owns the place where he ( and his sons) live.
Quote:
Not having body guards and walking around is suicide.
Those are bandits and criminals not his "constituents"
On a more serious note - of course, the more things are progressing, the more his life is in danger I'd think.
Not even because of "Putin's orders" per se, but because of a lot of bozos/idiots in Putin's crowd.
Knowing everything I know about the Soviet Union, I am totally convinced that the reason it REALLY crashed, was the stubborn refusal of Soviet leaders to allow the private sector coexist along the government sector.
On another hand, they were apparently afraid to let the "bacilli of cupidity" into the country, since it was so destructive for society during Imperial times.
Well this is a misconception.
When Stalin was conducting his rapid industrialization, he STILL NEEDED people in the country side, just NOT AS MANY as it used to be there before. (Tzarist Russia was what? about 80% agrarian?) So Stalin was accomplishing in a rapid and forceful manner what the Empire couldn't accomplish in a natural way and in a timely manner. All this transformation of the peasantry into qualified workforce in the cities, ( the way it happened in Western part of Europe,) with reasonable amount of people left behind in the country side.
And in fact he FORCIBLY kept part of peasantry in villages ( they couldn't get their passports to move out of there.) So no, during Stalin's times there were still enough of people in rural areas.
Their next big "migration" to cities happened already in Khrushev times, at the beginning of the 60ies.
They were still there throughout Brezhnev times, but it was the post-Soviet, capitalist Russia that really finished them off.
We are not talking about the "career driven people" - obviously they need to move to the cities, but Russians for the most part originally are country-side dwellers; they are hardy people, that like to live on their land, close to the nature. It's in their "blood and veins."
I can see even on-line how ( unfamiliar to me) people are discussing such opportunities ( or rather lack of thereof.)
I dare to disagree...
It's a combination of Lenin and Stalin's collectivization and dekulakization/raskulachivaniye that led to famine, starvation of 1921-1922. Agriculture never recovered to it's pre-revolution level.
I dare to disagree...
It's a combination of Lenin and Stalin's collectivization and dekulakization/raskulachivaniye that led to famine, starvation of 1921-1922
I never said it didn't lead to famine/death and all kind of disasters (Stalin acknowledged it himself in his conversation with Churchill,) but the argument was that he finished off the life in the country side.
While he really did not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I'd turn to fish and mushrooms, kinda 
