Forum

Strangely enough, the result of such an iron-fisted rule is usually a terrible regression of society (Hussein, Gaddafi, Mubarak from recent examples).

That option is also possible. An iron fist is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

By the way, you're wrong about Gaddafi - under him, Libya became a fairly prosperous state. His fault in the war starting is only partial, and in how it ended, there is no fault at all; the script was written outside of Libya.

My point is that progress in society from talk, entertainment, voting, and other Maidan-style movements happens at roughly the same pace as muscle growth from reading bodybuilding magazines. Development comes through exertion of effort, intensive work, restriction of pleasures, i.e., passing through the discomfort zone. Therefore, development requires will first and foremost, and in the case of a state, that is political will, meaning a leader who relies on supporters, crushes opponents, and forces everyone else to get moving.

So rehashing "how bad everyone is" is not constructive; the constructive answer is the question "what to do" and "who is good." That is, the path is not "from something," but "towards something."

There is an opinion that there are only two nations - the poor and the rich, and of course a very important buffer layer. Communication in society is easier the closer its upper and lower boundaries are (stratification) and the larger the middle class. That is, communication is simplified by the close social status of the subjects. The rich will always understand the rich, and the poor are united in the fight against the exploiter (sometimes there are exceptions, so-called "Tolstoyans," etc.).

I generally agree with this. It's just difficult to find a golden mean here - people are not equal in talents, hard work, and ambitions, so artificially averaging social status is also fraught with increased tension in society. The example is the same USSR.

Added after 48 minutes

Wicc, I am shocked, I always considered you a sensible person... I highly doubt your brain is washed by the propaganda box, this is probably just trolling.

I am a sensible person :)

Overthrowing a dictator does not mean destroying the barn - it means changing its owner.

The goal is not the dictator/non-dictator, but the barn. Whoever can build it is good, regardless of their personal qualities and political views. Whoever cannot is not good, again regardless of them.

As far as we know, in 1917 there was not a peaceful popular protest, but an armed revolution and a real civil war. The goal of the Maidan was not this.

These are nuances of implementation, but the goal and meaning are the same - protest against the current government. Still, 1917 did not happen suddenly; it was preceded by many other protests, both peaceful and not.

I'm saying that the right protest leader is one who has a vision of the future state, a development program, some kind of ideology, a team of managers or the ability to create one, as well as decisiveness and purposefulness. The Bolsheviks had all of this, which is why Lenin is the right protest leader, as shown by the further course of events - they protested their way to the number 2 state in the world.

And the fact that a lot of wood was broken in the process is not so much their fault as it is objective social and economic laws - breaking a barn always leads to household inconveniences, and rapid restoration leads to strong tension on the body.

What stable growth are you talking about? There are more cars and salaries have risen? This is not Putin's merit, it is the merit of oil prices. During the entire reign of Putin, oil prices rose 10(!) times. With the money from its sale, Russia could have been turned into Kuwait. What did Putin do? He ruined the economy, almost completely hooking Russia on the oil needle. Exorbitant utility prices, African-level corruption, Basmanny courts, repression, police abuse, crushed small businesses. Are you closing your eyes to all this, focusing on slightly increased salaries? I have to disappoint you, now oil prices are falling, Putin himself is talking about a crisis, so soon there will be no normal salaries either. Are you satisfied with such stability? Any adequate economist, for example Guriev, will explain to you everything said above.

I have heard so many of these myths over the past couple of years that I am no longer surprised. And for some reason, I hear them every time either from schoolkids, or life's losers, or paid agitators. But people over 30, with a family/good job/personal business, usually say otherwise.

Moreover, these myths have been repeatedly dissected in every detail with references to primary sources, but the exalted fighters apparently do not read analytics, so they repeat the same thing over and over.

For example, the noticeable rise in oil prices began only in 2004, but economic growth started already in 2000. That is, during Putin's first term, growth came from streamlining the economy - putting legislation and judicial proceedings in order, introducing adequate export duties on oil and gas and forcing oil barons to pay them, the work of tax authorities, etc. Then with the rise in oil prices, the growth rate only increased, but the trend existed before that as well.

I can't be bothered to write about the rest, it would be way too many letters, but the theses there are about the same level. In short - all these horrors occur only in the minds of unconscious comrades who are poorly acquainted with real life, judge it by internet propaganda, or are simply too young to have the opportunity to personally compare - how it was before and how it became after.

For me, every few years, actions of government organizations cause slight surprise precisely at the everyday level - wow, they did it cool, didn't use to be like that. Maybe because I'm used to mostly relying on myself, maybe because I remember the chaos of the 90s, maybe because I don't listen to fairy tales about rivers of milk and banks of jelly "somewhere out there," maybe for some other reason, I simply note it as a fact.