What's so bad about Putin?

[Dogs On Acid]

He had a firm hand on Russian Oligarchs and helped fuel massive economic growth. The Russian working class were so much better off with him succeeding Yeltsin.

Why all the hate?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Who really hates him? I haven't seen anything:confused:

[Susurrus]

Probably the continuing corruption, classes, and the fact that he has essentially become a new tsar.

[Susurrus]

Not to mention the rampant ultra-nationalism he's fueled.

[Os Cangaceiros]

perhaps you should read this thread?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-kremlin-aids-t159761/index.html

here's an excerpt from the article:



Early in Vladimir Putin’s reign, Kremlin ideologists devised what they called “managed democracy.” All acceptable political groups, from tame communists to officially sanctioned liberals, would be brought into one big orchestra that would be conducted by the Kremlin. Everyone inside would have Duma seats, official apartments, sinecures, chauffeured cars. Those who refused to play along would be ruthlessly crushed. The campaign has continued to this day: earlier this summer the Kremlin made a play for liberal support by installing a loyal oligarch, the metals billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, as head of a tame liberal opposition party called Right Cause.


Russia’s leaders have made similar efforts to win over the country’s ultranationalists. As Belov puts it, “If the Kremlin cannot destroy [ultranationalism], they will try to lead it.” In March the authorities extended a formal offer of cooperation to an ultranationalist party known as the National Democrats. The group’s formal platform is a mishmash of anti-establishment rhetoric, but its basic aims are simple and straightforward: to stop the “Islamization of Russia,” and to stop the immigration of Caucasus natives to European Russia. The National Democrats’ leader, Dmitry Fiaktistov, wants “purely Russian ethnic areas” to be established so that Russia’s peoples can be segregated, like Israeli Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank. “We would agree to cooperate” with the Kremlin, says Fiaktistov, who described Anders Breivik as “a genius” after the Norway rampage.

[brigadista]

IV4IjHz2yIo

[ArrowLance]

The reason why is he is no Stalin.

[The Douche]

He's the head of a massive capitalist state, for starters...

[bietan jarrai]

He's the head of a massive capitalist state, for starters...


...continuing corruption, classes, and the fact that he has essentially become a new tsar...


...not to mention the rampant ultra-nationalism he's fueled.

this.

[Rss]

Putin is a handsome rogue, but there are these oligarchy, nationalism and crony capitalism things going on as well.

[Dogs On Acid]

Putin is a handsome rogue, but there are these oligarchy, nationalism and crony capitalism things going on as well.

They were there before him, if anything he helped combat it.

[Conscript]

He would combat oligarchs and corruption so far as it threatened him as a ruling oligarch, that's about it. He's no friend of the russian working class.

[Sasha]

Me thinks that blowing up several hundred of your own citizens in a false flag operation to re-start the chechen war that will again cost several thousands of deaths only to consolidate your power is enough reason for some disagreements with the guy.

edit:linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

[Nox]

He owned George Bush at every oppurtunity, but besides that he sucks.

[Ocean Seal]

He had a firm hand on Russian Oligarchs and helped fuel massive economic growth. The Russian working class were so much better off with him succeeding Yeltsin.

Why all the hate?
Well the working class in America was better off under Clinton than Bush albeit not so large of a difference, but we still oppose them because they're both capitalist imperialists and are thinking of the ruling classes of their home nation. Putin would jump on the opportunity to reduce any nation in the third world into clientage and stomp on any revolution.

[Dogs On Acid]

What does he gain by fueling Nationalism? A loyal population?

[Susurrus]

What does he gain by fueling Nationalism? A loyal population?

Bingo.

[Dire Helix]

He had a firm hand on Russian Oligarchs...

The number of dollar billionaires increased tenfold during his rule.


...and helped fuel massive economic growth.Enjoying the benefits of high oil prices while letting everything else go to hell does not equal "massive economic growth".


The Russian working class were so much better off with him succeeding Yeltsin.There`s more social inequality now and the working class is even more lumpenized than ever before, so no.

[Commissar Rykov]

Not to mention the rampant ultra-nationalism he's fueled.
Exactly, he has basically sanctioned certain Ultranationalist Organizations that will adhere to him and his United Russia Party. The reality is the only cracking down that Putin has done is to parties and people who weren't falling in line with him and the Kremlin. That isn't fight corruption that is just streamlining it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

perhaps you should read this thread?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-kremlin-aids-t159761/index.html

here's an excerpt from the article:

I should say this, though: managed democracy as a concept predated Putin's ideologue(s), and by itself is not necessarily a bad thing. In contrast to "liberal democracy," managed democracy can go as far back or further than classical antiquity, and even the dictatorship of the proletariat itself is, for the working class, the highest form of managed democracy (no fetishes for universal suffrage or multi-party pluralism).

[Os Cangaceiros]

And thus we come full-circle back to revolutionary Third World Caesarism!

[Kornilios Sunshine]

He exploits the workers by putting them work for capitalism and therefore he promotes capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And thus we come full-circle back to revolutionary Third World Caesarism!

In my response to the OP and your own post mentioning managed democracy, I considered Third World Caesarean Socialism (the Third World managed democracy of the patriotic/"national"/"pan-national" petit-bourgeoisie) to be incidental to my bigger point:

The DOTP itself is a form of managed democracy.

Does anyone wish to contend this?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In my response to the OP and your own post mentioning managed democracy, I considered Third World Caesarean Socialism (the Third World managed democracy of the patriotic/"national"/"pan-national" petit-bourgeoisie) to be incidental to my bigger point:

The DOTP itself is a form of managed democracy.

Does anyone wish to contend this?

Yes. Democracy cannot be managed. 'Managed democracy' is merely a phrase which highlights the emptiness of the latter of the epithets.

So, your beloved managed ceasarian democracy is but a sham which involves lots of strongman-ism and little democracy. Well done.:rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes. Democracy cannot be managed. 'Managed democracy' is merely a phrase which highlights the emptiness of the latter of the epithets.

So how do you explain the Bolshevik moves against universal suffrage and against other parties?


So, your beloved managed ceasarian democracy is but a sham which involves lots of strongman-ism and little democracy. Well done.:rolleyes:

The "strongman-ism" is irrelevant, because there can also be perceived "strongman-ism" (i.e., genuine personality cults but without much institutional enforcement beneath). What matters is a managed multi-party or multi-tendency (DOTP) system of sorts, with the ability to make and break real or perceived strongman-isms.

[28350]

He [...] helped fuel massive economic growth.

Everyone always says this (or he nationalized all the industries!), be it about Stalin or Hoxha or whomever. I don't get why it's a good thing. Economic growth is not about supplying for or helping people. You're just in a capitalist upswing.


The DOTP itself is a form of managed democracy. Does anyone wish to contend this?

It's a little hard for me to respond because I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but if what you're saying is that the DotP will have some sort of managed political theater, then I think you're quite wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Allow me to clarify, then: "managed" doesn't refer to "political theater" at all. It refers to who can vote, who can't, who can run candidates, and who can't.

[Rafiq]

I agree, bourgeois idealist fantasies of complete unorganized democracy is laughable. It is called a proletarian dictatorship for a reason, that of which has nothing to do with allowing reactionary or bourgeois parties to exist, none the less participate in the executive system.

[Obs]

Goddammit, you dumbasses let DNZ turn another perfectly good thread into being about him.

[Commissar Rykov]

Goddammit, you dumbasses let DNZ turn another perfectly good thread into being about him.
It would probably be better if we mandated that everyone drop a DNZ line in every thread.

[RED DAVE]

He had a firm hand on Russian Oligarchs and helped fuel massive economic growth. The Russian working class were so much better off with him succeeding Yeltsin.

Why all the hate?Because he's the leader of a bourgeois state with a strong state capitalist component.

Marxists are not fond of such.

RED DAVE

[Commissar Rykov]

Because he's the leader of a bourgeois state with a strong state capitalist component.

Marxists are not fond of such.

RED DAVE
Not to mention all the corruption he dabbles in, uniting of Ultranationalist parties under his party and the Kremlin, and a continued strengthening of the FSB state apparatus due to some weird fetishism caused by career Chekists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because he's the leader of a bourgeois state with a strong state capitalist component.

Marxists are not fond of such.

I think that's too obvious an answer. I think the implicit question was "What's so bad... other than" what you described above.


Not to mention all the corruption he dabbles in

Define "corruption." This is a guy who admires the anti-corruption crusader Yuri Andropov.


uniting of Ultranationalist parties under his party and the Kremlin

The nationalist tendencies in Russia are divided. Some will call others sellouts for not wanting some form of Russian-dominated (as always) political reunion in the former Soviet space.


and a continued strengthening of the FSB state apparatus due to some weird fetishism caused by career Chekists.

Again, Putin admires Yuri Andropov.

[RED DAVE]

Because he's the leader of a bourgeois state with a strong state capitalist component.

Marxists are not fond of such.
I think that's too obvious an answer. I think the implicit question was "What's so bad... other than" what you described above.I think you are projecting. the primary reason we oppose Putin is that he is the bourgeois leader of a bourgeois state. That is the root.


Not to mention all the corruption he dabbles in
Define "corruption." This is a guy who admires the anti-corruption crusader Yuri Andropov.Now in addition to being a social democrat, you're being a liberal. Corruption is about as common is Putin's regime as racists in the Tea Party.


uniting of Ultranationalist parties under his party and the Kremlin
The nationalist tendencies in Russia are divided. Some will call others sellouts for not wanting some form of Russian-dominated (as always) political reunion in the former Soviet space.AndPutin is in an implicit alliance with them.


Again, Putin admires Yuri Andropov.And Obama admires Nelson Mandela.

Do you mean this Yuri Andropov?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropov

The crusher of the Prague Spring? The suppresser of Soviet dissidents. The hater of the Hungarian Revolution. That Yuri Anropov?

If so, then your Stalinist underwear is showing.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think you are projecting. the primary reason we oppose Putin is that he is the bourgeois leader of a bourgeois state. That is the root.

Allende was also the leader of a bourgeois state, yet we don't call him "bad" in the moral sense, but just "naive" (re. parliamentary cretinism and overall legalism) and "reformist."


And Putin is in an implicit alliance with them.

No he isn't. He wants a stronger Russian Federation and an EU-style body for the former Soviet space (see my thread on the new customs union), but gives lip service to a full political reunion, particularly in the case of the Union State between Russia and Belarus.


Now in addition to being a social democrat, you're being a liberal. Corruption is about as common is Putin's regime as racists in the Tea Party.

And Obama admires Nelson Mandela.

Do you mean this Yuri Andropov?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andropov

The crusher of the Prague Spring? The suppresser of Soviet dissidents. The hater of the Hungarian Revolution. That Yuri Andropov?

If so, then your Stalinist underwear is showing.

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Analyses_12/Emerging_From_Andropov_s_Shadow_25690_printer.shtm l


In a long article on the 90th anniversary of Andropov's birth, Nikolai Patrushev, current leader of the FSB, successor to the KGB, painted an idealized portrait of Andropov as a fighter against corruption, an advocate of winning the people's trust and a firm believer that the "KGB is not an exceptional agency" -- meaning not above the law. This is another part of the image of the intelligence chief attaining political power -- the spy who turns out to be more liberal than might have been expected. It was excessive liberalism in dealing with East Germany that led to a workers' uprising that caused the downfall of Lavrenty Beria, the head of the secret police under Stalin. Perhaps Stalin's daughter Svetlana was wrong about Beria leading her father astray; maybe Stalin corrupted Beria, who affected intelligentsia manners and wore a pince-nez.

Putin's career mirrors Andropov's, but the proportions are reversed. Putin was head of the FSB for only a little more than a year but has been president for six. Andropov was head of the KGB for 15 years but Soviet leader for just 15 months. To a considerable extent, Putin has made good on Andropov's promise. Andropov inherited a Soviet Union bloated after the long years of stagnation under Brezhnev, but he didn't live long enough to reshape it. Putin, who inherited an enormous mess from Yeltsin, has been quite successful in restoring stability, prosperity and international respect for Russia. Putin has been helped mightily, of course, by the jump in oil and natural gas prices but luck has always been a sign of the favor of the gods. "All of my generals are good," Caesar was supposed to have said before important battles. "Tell me which ones are lucky."

Putin has thus validated the image of the tough intelligence chief turned national leader.

[Susurrus]

About Andropov:

"he had watched in horror from the windows of his embassy as officers of the hated Hungarian security service were strung up from lampposts. Andropov remained haunted for the rest of his life by the speed with which an apparently all-powerful Communist one-party state had begun to topple. When other Communist regimes later seemed at risk - in Prague in 1968, in Kabul in 1979, in Warsaw in 1981, he was convinced that, as in Budapest in 1956, only armed force could ensure their survival" Christopher Andrews

[Commissar Rykov]

About Andropov:

"he had watched in horror from the windows of his embassy as officers of the hated Hungarian security service were strung up from lampposts. Andropov remained haunted for the rest of his life by the speed with which an apparently all-powerful Communist one-party state had begun to topple. When other Communist regimes later seemed at risk - in Prague in 1968, in Kabul in 1979, in Warsaw in 1981, he was convinced that, as in Budapest in 1956, only armed force could ensure their survival" Christopher Andrews
I don't think DNZ understood your quote that or he is supporting Chekist style oppression?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You should re-read the OCNUS article quoted above, on what Putin specifically admires about Andropov.

[Obs]

^^^ You should re-read the OCNUS article quoted above, on what Putin specifically admires about Andropov.
I like how you're leaving out the possibility that a bourgeois leader might, you know, lie.

[electro_fan]

umm how about: the fact that he has encouraged fascist groups and organised criminal syndicates to target people who he doesn't agree with? and the fact that he's a head (or was until recently, now he's just an extremely powerful government official) of an imperialist capitaist state which restricts people from going on strike?

the fact that he's been involved in bloody reprisals against the chechens and a campaign of terror against them, and also that he took part in another imperialist war?

it would be interesting to hear what's good about him because whats bad about him is too long to go into :D

[Susurrus]

The quote was a negative one...

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ How is "fighting corruption, winning the people's trust," and not placing security agencies above the law a bad thing?


umm how about: the fact that he has encouraged fascist groups and organised criminal syndicates to target people who he doesn't agree with?

I already rebutted the "encouraged fascist groups" claim, and the targeted killings (a former KGB agent and a journalist) weren't done by organized crime, but by the FSB apparatus itself.


and the fact that he's a head (or was until recently, now he's just an extremely powerful government official) of an imperialist capitaist state which restricts people from going on strike?

Why did it take so long to bring up how Putin handles labour disputes?


the fact that he's been involved in bloody reprisals against the chechens and a campaign of terror against them, and also that he took part in another imperialist war?

For the record, I don't believe the Kremlin was responsible for the apartment bombings (psycho's post). Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Russian_plans_for_the_war

1) An MVD general was abducted.
2) There were earlier terrorist incidents and border clashes.
3) The Chechen militants crossed over into Dagestan.

So many flames were fanned by the other side and by the time of the apartment bombings, such that Kremlin culpability was no longer necessary.

However, what nobody has pointed out here in this thread is Putin's resorting to warlordism as a means to administer the area. That encompasses the "campaign of terror," and warlordism as a means of political administration is very bad.

[RED DAVE]

I think you are projecting. the primary reason we oppose Putin is that he is the bourgeois leader of a bourgeois state. That is the root.
Allende was also the leader of a bourgeois state, yet we don't call him "bad" in the moral sense, but just "naive" (re. parliamentary cretinism and overall legalism) and "reformist."Speak for yourself. Allende was one of the great disasters of modern history. Your social democracy is becoming more and more evident. Allende's naivite was inexcusable. It was the expression of his class position.


And Putin is in an implicit alliance with them.
No he isn't. He wants a stronger Russian Federation and an EU-style body for the former Soviet space (see my thread on the new customs union), but gives lip service to a full political reunion, particularly in the case of the Union State between Russia and Belarus.Putin is up to his neck in relationships with the Right.

You are engaging in apologetics for the leader of bourgeois state. This is typical of social democracy.

RED DAVE

[Susurrus]

^^^ How is "fighting corruption, winning the people's trust," and not placing security agencies above the law a bad thing?


The fact that the third one is patently untrue

"In the West, if Andropov is remembered at all, it is for his brutal suppression of political dissidence at home and for his role in planning the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. By contrast, the leaders of the former Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when I was one of them, looked up to Andropov as the man who substituted the KGB for the Communist party in governing the Soviet Union, and who was the godfather of Russia's new era of deception operations aimed at improving the badly damaged image of Soviet rulers in the West." Ion Mihai Pacepa

and that he favored putting down popular uprisings by military force, thus proving the second one untrue as well.

[Commissar Rykov]

The fact that the third one is patently untrue

"In the West, if Andropov is remembered at all, it is for his brutal suppression of political dissidence at home and for his role in planning the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. By contrast, the leaders of the former Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when I was one of them, looked up to Andropov as the man who substituted the KGB for the Communist party in governing the Soviet Union, and who was the godfather of Russia's new era of deception operations aimed at improving the badly damaged image of Soviet rulers in the West." Ion Mihai Pacepa

and that he favored putting down popular uprisings by military force, thus proving the second one untrue as well.
Like I said DNZ doesn't read the things he supports like your previous quote. That he gave it a thanks made me laugh pretty damn hard. It is becoming obvious at this point he is just a Social Democrat Bourgeois Apologist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

By contrast, the leaders of the former Warsaw Pact intelligence community, when I was one of them, looked up to Andropov as the man who substituted the KGB for the Communist party in governing the Soviet Union

Except that these perceptions were woefully wrong. The KGB didn't substitute the leading role of the central, full-time party apparatchiks. If that had been the case, the leading organs of the party would have been staffed by more people with a KGB background.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=D6FqtxQDFdMC&pg=PT78&dq=andropov+kgb&hl=en&ei=XrRjTqKVDunUiALWwrm9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=andropov%20kgb&f=false


Gromyko and the other leaders trusted Andropov because they had known him for a long time and had noted his willingness to preserve the Party's leading role. Furthermore, Andropov had always opposed the arrest of high-ranking Party leaders. Among the factors that tended to highlight his image as a leader committed to moderation was the fact that Andropov was elderly and seriously ill; therefore, if he were to aspire to be a new Beria, he would have neither the time nor the strength. The Politburo's intention in 1982 was to choose Andropov the communist, not Andropov the KGB man, as Brezhnev's successor.


and that he favored putting down popular uprisings by military force, thus proving the second one untrue as well.

That quote about suppressing uprisings totally ignores more preemptive means, such that suppressions would not be necessary at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speak for yourself. Allende was one of the great disasters of modern history.

"Great disaster" is not the same thing as "bad" in the moral sense, a la Hitler.


You are engaging in apologetics for the leader of bourgeois state. This is typical of social democracy.

That was actually an implicit and harsh criticism of Putin re. nationalist intrigues. Here's my thread on the new customs union:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-soviet-space-t159292/index.html

[OhYesIdid]

Allow me to clarify, then: "managed" doesn't refer to "political theater" at all. It refers to who can vote, who can't, who can run candidates, and who can't.

Wait, what the fucking fuck? DOTP refers to how, necessarily, the working class must hold power after a revolution, and how all new leaders will be naturally elected by and among the proletariat itself. Socialism aims to build a classless, stateless society, btfw, and maintaining direct, inclusive, democracy is an essential part of it. Ideally, by the time this comes to pass the bourgeois will be either all buried or powerless to do anything about it.
As for justifying Lenin' actions, I don't. What am I, some sort of idiot?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't make a virtue of disenfranchising the bourgeoisie and other capital property owners from voting or being (s)elected. It's just that a) Universal suffrage isn't a panacea b) Voting and being (s)elected are mere drops in the bigger pool of political participation. It may be necessary to disenfranchise hostile elements from all forms of political participation altogether. I mean, for instance, organized religion has other means of political participation such that "separation of church and state" is now somewhat meaningless (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-religious-critiquei-t139123/index.html)!

That is why the DOTP is necessarily the highest form of managed democracy... for the working class.

[RED DAVE]

^^^ I don't make a virtue of disenfranchising the bourgeoisie and other capital property owners from voting or being (s)elected. It's just that a) Universal suffrage isn't a panacea b) Voting and being (s)elected are mere drops in the bigger pool of political participation. It may be necessary to disenfranchise hostile elements from all forms of political participation altogether. I mean, for instance, organized religion has other means of political participation such that "separation of church and state" is now somewhat meaningless (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-religious-critiquei-t139123/index.html)!Social democracy to the core.


That is why the DOTP is necessarily the highest form of managed democracy... for the working class.You can't even CYA if you want to. There is nothing "managed" about the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is revolutionary democracy.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social democracy to the core.

You're confused. Social democracy treats universal suffrage like a panacea. Or did you forget the Bolshevik disenfranchisements?

[Zukunftsmusik]

He had a firm hand on Russian Oligarchs and helped fuel massive economic growth. The Russian working class were so much better off with him succeeding Yeltsin.

Why all the hate?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he eats the still-beating hearts of his enemies. (Gives him high cholesterol levels, though. Perhaps he's digging his own grave with that habit)

My very reliable source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lex1vgJVu11qeozqho1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1315249552&Signature=yL%2FJaTb5hE4liKAGZ8KUHJ5Cu7g%3D

[RED DAVE]

Social democracy to the core.
You're confused. Social democracy treats universal suffrage like a panacea.It's you who are confused. And so you use words to confuse others not to educate them. Keeping digging the political hole you'll fall into.

Getting back to the OP, Putin is the bourgeois leader of a bourgeois state, with a strong state capitalist component. That's what so bad about him.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's you who are confused. And so you use words to confuse others not to educate them.

What's your take on universal suffrage?

[electro_fan]

^^^ How is "fighting corruption, winning the people's trust," and not placing security agencies above the law a bad thing?

1) "Fighting corruption"

If Putin is so keen on fighting corruption lol (and not just sections of the bourgeoisie that don't agree with his/Gazproms interests so he can then accuse them of being corrupt) then he doesnt seem to have much success:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-russia-mayor-killing-idUSTRE77L4OV20110822

in fact he's even been implicated in corruption scandals himself :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122203770.html

http://corruptionfreerussia.com/

and so on ...

2) "Winning the people's trust"

according to people ive spoken to in russia (including a guy i did some work for who is not political in any way) he is far from "winning the people's trust" lol. :D

3) "Not placing security agencies above the law"

In common with most capitalist states this is what he has done


I already rebutted the "encouraged fascist groups" claim, and the targeted killings (a former KGB agent and a journalist) weren't done by organized crime, but by the FSB apparatus itself.

So you're saying that putin didn't authorise them? nonetheless, there is evidence that organised crime has become linked with the state bureaucracy and that this has led to horrific acts being carried out. i wasn't referring to those killings specifically




Why did it take so long to bring up how Putin handles labour disputes?


no idea, ask everyone else



For the record, I don't believe the Kremlin was responsible for the apartment bombings (psycho's post). Here's why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Russian_plans_for_the_war

1) An MVD general was abducted.
2) There were earlier terrorist incidents and border clashes.
3) The Chechen militants crossed over into Dagestan.

So many flames were fanned by the other side and by the time of the apartment bombings, such that Kremlin culpability was no longer necessary.

Im not saying what I believe or don't believe about that, I'm saying that Chechnya - and other places - has been subjected to military rule and countless atrocities - a campaign of terror


However, what nobody has pointed out here in this thread is Putin's resorting to warlordism as a means to administer the area. That encompasses the "campaign of terror," and warlordism as a means of political administration is very bad.

yep, i agree with that - but do you have any examples for me to read about? ta

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) "Fighting corruption"

If Putin is so keen on fighting corruption lol (and not just sections of the bourgeoisie that don't agree with his/Gazproms interests so he can then accuse them of being corrupt) then he doesnt seem to have much success:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/us-russia-mayor-killing-idUSTRE77L4OV20110822

That's what he gets, though, for having and maintaining a Russian bureaucracy that is bigger than the Soviet bureaucracy ever was (i.e., the number of bureaucrats throughout the Soviet Union).


in fact he's even been implicated in corruption scandals himself :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122203770.html

http://corruptionfreerussia.com/

and so on ...

Here's an update on the 2010 article:

http://www.miriamelder.com/?p=398


The scandal provoked a huge outcry in Russia. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, was forced to comment, saying the prime minister was not involved in organizing the event and that the funds’ whereabouts should be investigated.

[...]

Some here suspect that the allegations of corruption against Putin are part of pre-electoral infighting among Putin and Medvedev’s allies. Putin has said the two will decide who will run in Russia’s next presidential election in 2012, but it seems they have yet to come to a decision.

Now:


2) "Winning the people's trust"

according to people ive spoken to in russia (including a guy i did some work for who is not political in any way) he is far from "winning the people's trust" lol. :D

Well, in today's Russia public perception of its leading politicians varies, but there are institutional traditions. The president is usually seen as untouchable, but not so much the prime minister. Putin was higher in the popularity ratings when he was president than his stint today as prime minister.


3) "Not placing security agencies above the law"

In common with most capitalist states this is what he has done

This was a reference to Andropov's legacy at the KGB, itself part of a long road towards restoring credibility after Stalin's purges.


So you're saying that putin didn't authorise them?

Not at all. Either he did, or a few folks behind his back but under his patronage did. Again, I don't think organized crime is as well-equipped as the FSB or SVR in dishing out political killings.


nonetheless, there is evidence that organised crime has become linked with the state bureaucracy and that this has led to horrific acts being carried out. i wasn't referring to those killings specifically

Links?


yep, i agree with that - but do you have any examples for me to read about? ta

What I meant by state-sponsored warlordism is that the warlord kisses the Kremlin's ass, but in exchange behaves like a strongman above the law in his own fief.

[RED DAVE]

What's your take on universal suffrage?Better yet, what's your take on Putin? You seem to think there's a case to be made for him.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've peppered this thread with sufficient critiques of my own. I've also criticized other criticisms which I see as less valid.

BTW, originally I bookmarked the appropriate commentary as "Left Putinism" for the purposes of hyperlinks, but eventually I came to realize that this term has little historical purchase.

[onix]

exploit of the asset "cold war" through capitalist hegemoniacs

[Dogs On Acid]

Keep going guys I'm lovin' this thread :thumbup1: