Russian Websites Critical of Elections Targeted In DDoS Attack

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

Comments

It did not help

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:It did not help

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:It did not help

[Anonymous Coward]

Coverage of election results on BBC

Re:It did not help

[Hentes]

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

Re:It did not help

[Nimey]

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

Re:It did not help

[shutdown -p now]

Don't go by "allegedly", see for yourself.

Re:It did not help

[shutdown -p now]

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

On the other hand, everything's as planned in Chechnya.

Re:It did not help

[Luckyo]

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

Re:It did not help

[amiga3D]

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

Re:It did not help

[macraig]

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

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

Re:It did not help

[Nimey]

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

Re:It did not help

[mapkinase]

According to exit polls.

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

Choke on sperm

Sucking oil pipeline

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

Re:It did not help

[shutdown -p now]

I apologize, the link to Slashdot is a mispaste.

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

Re:It did not help

[Kagura]

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

Re:It did not help

[MightyMartian]

Even within the two parties there are wide differences of opinion. The two US parties would be considered in most parliamentary systems to be stable permanent coalitions. The two parties cover so much ideological ground they are effectively four or five parties in terms of Westminster styled political systems.

Re:It did not help

[macraig]

I didn't say "agendas". I wasn't referring to what they believe but rather how they go about achieving goals... in other words, their behavior. I was also referring to the people who control the parties, not so much the rank and file.

To distill my point further: people at the pinnacle of hierarchies tend to all behave the same - unethically - regardless what the name is on the clubhouse or what its purpose is. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Political parties are never an exception.

Re:It did not help

[rtfa-troll]

I take "controlled by" to have little to do with who's internally running the parties. Look at corporate donors; most of these donate to both Republicans and Democrats and often do so quite equally. They tend to get the things that they want. Go out into the street and ask random Americans what issues they find pressing. I doubt you will find "music piracy" or "film piracy" mentioned even by one percent. The US politicians, both Democrat and Republican, however, see this as such an important issue that it has come up repeatedly in the past few years. These are the people who are really "controlling" the parties.

Re:It did not help

[gl4ss]

also because of the way the voting process is done.. the officials make vote selling possible(you can mark your vote in clear view). also patients in hospitals etc are used to vote whatever the staff wants - being russia the staff might think that it's even legit!

Re:It did not help

[macraig]

I won't argue there are puppeteers involved who are common to both. I wasn't widening the view in my comment to include them, but perhaps they are who the GP was referring. I can't decide who's worse, them or the people willing to do their bidding with full knowledge of the ramifications.

Re:It did not help

[SebZero]

Well those are really not that surprising because elections have quite a run-up period!

In that time the one major political power has access to the media to the exclusion of all others while showing puff pieces with videos of Putin riding combine harvesters, tranquilising siberian tigers, diving to pull artifacts from wrecks all while pulling his shirt off at every moment.
When the one major political party uses government resources to print pamphlets and travel to visit city centres while all the challengers have to fund their own campaign.
Even if the votes were counted fairly, that's quite a handicap to give your opponents!

Re:It did not help

[Luckyo]

While I agree, no matter how you stretch it, it's still not fraud.

Re:It did not help

[TangoMargarine]

Maybe they're not mutually-exclusive? Hell, I don't know Cyrillic.

Re:It did not help

[shutdown -p now]

The rows on the graph are party names. One person can only vote for one party in Russia, it's not a ranked system. So, yes, it is mutually exclusive.

As many people have remarked, it basically looks like they took the raw numbers, then added 30% to United Russia (it's the top one).

Re:It did not help

[amiga3D]

I don't see it. Frankly what you're talking about is just smoke and mirrors designed to keep the people divided while the country is raped. Black against white, christian against atheist, and so on. Divide and conquer. I didn't say that the parties were the same, I said the people in control of those parties are the same people, the people who really run the country. Look at our current President. While I disagree with some of the things he wanted to do, I did have some hope that at least some of the better ideas that the liberals had would get implemented. Nope. We got health care reform that is a disaster, we'd have been better off with national health care than the messed up junk that was eventually passed. Then there's the war on terror. Really a war on civil rights that has continued unabated despite all the claims that Mr. Obama made during his campaign. I could go on but if you watch, all the really bad things seem to get bipartisan support. Remember, we HAD to bail out the banks and auto companies.

Re:It did not help

[macraig]

I don't disagree with your assessment. Read my replies to others; it finally dawned on me that you probably weren't talking about people who had official roles in both/all parties but rather puppeteers that didn't. I don't disagree those people exist.

I rooted for Kucinich when he pushed for impeachment; I rooted for him again when he tried to preserve single-payer health care. I was mad when he caved and voted for the final bill, but I knew he was up against people who can bribe their marionettes with things far more tangible than a clear conscience and a good night's sleep.

No "Soviet Russia" jokes, please. This is serious.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sites are mostly up

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

Re:Sites are mostly up

[Anonymous Coward]

probably some of the DDoS attacks can be explained by surge in the number of viewers.

I suspect all of it can be explained as a traffic spike, rather than a DDoS attack.

The Government lost support in the election, so this was just the physical manifestation of increased voter interest in alternatives.

A similar thing happened at the last British EU Parliament election, with the websites of non-Government political parties being swamped with swing voters. It's just a case of small website meets big traffic.

no Majority

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:no Majority

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

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

You decide.

Re:no Majority

[nyfle]

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

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

Re:no Majority

[shutdown -p now]

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

Re:no Majority

[sjames]

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

Why is that? What motive is there to lie? The poll itself depends on the voter to tell the truth about who he wants in office too.

Re:no Majority

[TangoMargarine]

Except when we hear about them often pressuring people to vote a certain way at the polls...

Re:no Majority

[shutdown -p now]

That is precisely my point. If you have people being pressured to vote a certain way, on a scale sufficiently large to be noticed, it means that your democracy is flawed, and you don't have a free society.

mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[masternerdguy]

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

Sure. So is socialism.

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

Let me quote you:

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Sure. So is socialism.

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

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

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

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

The market ended in Russia once Putin came to power.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

Wrong, as usual.

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

- of-course it's forced upon people.

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

Wrong, as usual.

- this statement is false.

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

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

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

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

- I already explained.

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[masternerdguy]

because capitalism makes sense as it is the most natural system

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Capitalism is based on mindless competition and growth,

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[masternerdguy]

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

- power balance is the answer to your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good stuff, very good stuff. I wouldn't vote for it.

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:mafia party

[magarity]

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

And this is different from capitalism exactly how?

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

Re:mafia party

[Gaian-Orlanthii]

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

Re:mafia party

[Jedi Alec]

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[magarity]

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

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly those who win in this process win the universe.

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[circletimessquare]

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Attila Dimedici]

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

Re:mafia party

[muon-catalyzed]

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

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

Interstate system exacerbated the Great Depression?!?!?!

Fuck off you idiot

Re:mafia party

[TapeCutter]

If you didn't have to pay those taxes you would have that money.

If nobody paid taxes there would be no money to be had, money requires the backing of a civilization to be trusted, civilizations requires taxes to operate regardless of what type of civilization we're talking about. As for socialisim being the root of all economic evil - Do you burry your turds in your own back yard or do you use the public sewerage system? Do you have a flying car or do you use the public roads and bridges? Do you have a private beach or do you use the public one? Socialisim is all around you everyday, but you're too ideologically blind to see it.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

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

- no, I directed him at my other comment in this same thread that addresses that exact question. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word 'hyperlink'.

Unfettered capitalism has just as much capacity for totalitarianism as communism.

- capitalism is an economic system that can exist within different political systems, what you don't understand is that capitalism is not itself a political system.

Combined with a political system (as I explained in this thread and this is an unfortunate repetition) that is able to modify the law that is set up on a principle of maximum individual freedoms and the modifications always lead to minimizing those freedoms, then capitalism becomes a catalyst of corruption in that system, because capitalism can provide funds necessary to buy the corrupt politicians who are able to bypass the law and sell the power.

This is why you need a strong government with strong regulatory powers to keep the marketplace fair by preventing the largest players from performing inevitable abuse, and breaking them up if necessary.

- it has been your tune forever now, that people need 'strong government with strong regulatory powers'. That's a wrong idea, completely devoid of any ability to see beyond the consequences of having a strong government with strong regulatory abilities upon the individual liberties that are destroyed in such a system, which is of-course what leads to corruption.

No, we do not need a strong government with strong regulatory abilities, because government is not made up of some supermen, who will only use their strong regulatory abilities to regulate in a way that will lead to any outcome that is better than the outcome that unregulated free markets lead to. I also have shown this in the same thread. Of-course you didn't read it, so you are repeating the same thing again, and this makes your post redundant.

But an uncontrolled corporate sphere can also function like a mafia, and it can simply turn a weak government into its puppet.

- obviously the political system is not able to prevent politicians from stealing the power that they were not authorized to have, clearly the Constitution does not give the politicians the power to steal and then to sell out to various moneyed interest. This is something you don't understand.

Of-course the people (voters/citizens) are complicit in this theft and sale of power, otherwise it couldn't happen because people would form an opposition to such an even in each case.

You NEED a strong central government, and you need a healthy marketplace of corporations kept in check.

- unfortunately for you, you do have this 'strong central government', and because you have it, it stole enough power to give to the moneyed interest so that now your economy is destroyed.

If you weaken the government, the power vacuum is simply filled by the largest corporations, who simply buy the government. Do you understand?

- this is absolutely false, one more thing you don't understand. Government has legitimacy in terms of commanding the political system and corporations do not. No business has the power to jail you and kill you and steal from you legitimately. This is the power that only governments have, thus any power that a business can have is related to the industry of that business and the only way to exercise that power for a business without government intervention is by appealing to the customers and competing with other businesses.

The only role of government must be border defense. Everything else is a private matter (I go further than others, in that I see upholding criminal and contract law not belonging in the hands of federal power either.)

Your ideology is failing all the time, from USSR and Cuba, now to USA and EU. You are failing all the time with all of your premises that the gov't must have all these powers, it's amazing to me how blind some people are. I guess that's why back in USSR the power brokers used to call them 'useful idiots'.

Re:mafia party

[Alex Belits]

He doesn't.

I however do, and I have seen both for decades.

In particular, USSR had plenty of problems, and its destruction was a result of a rather complex process, however neither of those things are related to the fundamental ideas it was based upon. If anything, it was dissolved right after it got a good chance to start improving, because capitalism is incapable of applying advances in technology to industrial production until it runs out of desperate poor people.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Before I leave here, big powerful government is what people with money want to buy.

Small insignificant government that doesn't have authority to make winners and losers in the market, to decide on who gets the bail out and who doesn't, gov't that can't print money and dole out success/failure - this is not what people with money want to buy, capitalists or otherwise.

Big, powerful government is the root of all evil that human societies have to deal with.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Capitalism and socialism are both ways to handle scarcity.

1. Capitalism is a way to increase efficiency of one's work in order to minimize amount of work one does, while increasing his purchasing power, allowing him/her to have a more comfortable life with more leisure time.

2. Socialism is a way for a group of people to live off the fruits of labor of another group of people by using government power basically to steal.

None of them have anything to do with 'handling scarcity'.

As to unfortunate people, there cannot be a viable political system that forces some to help others, this has to be voluntary, and socialism is not voluntary.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

If nobody paid taxes there would be no money to be had

- you need to calm down. Taxes have nothing to do with production, which is what money is - expression of production.

Government does not produce and does not incite production. Production happens because people work in order to live and they produce something. Taxes reduce the amount of money available for investment.

In reality the confusion of ideas in your head on this topic is baffling.

As for socialisim being the root of all economic evil

- I said government is the root of all evil.

Do you burry your turds in your own back yard or do you use the public sewerage system?

- I use whatever sewer system that is available, some of sewer systems are public and some are private.

Do you have a flying car or do you use the public roads and bridges?

- I use whatever roads and bridges that are available, some are public and some are private.

Neither sewers nor roads should be public utilities.

Do you have a private beach or do you use the public one?

- I've never been on a public beach outside of USSR and Israel, only private.

Socialisim is all around you everyday, but you're too ideologically blind to see it.

- and it is wrong that it is all around, that's what is killing the economy and society.

Re:mafia party

[circletimessquare]

then you have no understanding of history

human history did not start with the russian revolution in 1917. you seem to have only one reference point by which autocracy exists

small hint: the bolsheviks and the labor movements of the period were fighting SOMETHING. what was it they were fighting? of course, their ideology recreated the something they were fighting, but you don't seem to be aware of what that preceding something is. your understanding of history is lacking

this is what you get with a weak government and a predatory capitalist system:

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

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

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

for example:

Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired as a private army or militia.[citation needed] Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.[1]
During the labor unrest of the late 19th century and early 20th century, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to provide agents that would infiltrate unions, to supply guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, and sometimes to recruit goon squads to intimidate workers.

if you don't understand why issues like these, which arise out of a weak state and unfettered capitalism, are just as much a threat to liberty as the only point of reference you seem to understand, then please read up on some basic world history, and learn from it, before fools like you doom us to repeat it

the value of labor in the usa, and elsewhere in the world, is currently being subverted by capitalist interests, who are basically buying off the american government. this is the seed of the next autocracy. without a relevant means to control their own government, labor agitates via extrajudicial means, and we have the makings of the russian revolution or french revolution all over again. we need to keep corporate power in check: it is the source of the next autocracy. NOT communism. communism is totally dead. but you only see the threat of liberty from that one dead ideology, so you don't understand history. for you, history starts in 1917

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

False.

USSR was doomed to failure the moment it started. It especially became obvious once the Stolypin's reforms were rejected by the USSR.

USSR was fundamentally flawed, just like communist China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Capitalism + free market is an economic model that increases the wealth of all people, and the people who are most benefiting from capitalism are the poor people, because they end up being able to buy all of the products and services at low prices provided by investment capital used within a free market system. That's why USA became the largest creditor nation, producer of high quality cheap products in 19 century, because the gov't was mostly absent in regulating most of the businesses.

Desperate poor people are helped by free market capitalism more than anybody else, as the richest people never had a problem with products/services that they could always buy even if those were available in single digits, not through a wide scale capitalist manufacturing/distribution network.

USSR was completely flawed because it threw away the basic principles of economics - private property, price discovery, market feedback loops, profit incentives. People don't work for the 'good of humanity', when put into a situation like USSR put them into, they just end up stealing whatever they can, not working to improve their plight, because working to improve their plight is impossible in property-less, profit-less, business-less society.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

then you have no understanding of history

- false.

human history did not start with the russian revolution in 1917. you seem to have only one reference point by which autocracy exists

- stupid.

small hint: the bolsheviks and the labor movements of the period were fighting SOMETHING. what was it they were fighting?

- sure.

of course, their ideology recreated the something they were fighting

- no, it created something worse.

but you don't seem to be aware of what that preceding something is. your understanding of history is lacking

- false.

if you don't understand why issues like these, which arise out of a weak state and unfettered capitalism

- stupid.

The state that did exist at the time was still giving out privileges to certain moneyed interest. The government was already corrupt, it just wasn't as corrupt as it became once the government grew bigger.

are just as much a threat to liberty as the only point of reference you seem to understand, then please read up on some basic world history, and learn from it, before fools like you doom us to repeat it

- false.

the value of labor in the usa, and elsewhere in the world, is currently being subverted by capitalist interests,

- false.

The labor in the USA is overvalued based on government regulations and tax code and inflation and subversion of power authorized to the government by the Constitution.

US productivity is very low, has been falling especially since 1971, when investment capital started leaving USA due to inflation and growth of government. As investment capital was leaving, the productivity of US worker was falling, because productivity of a worker depends on the amount of capital applied to a worker.

So a business that has only enough capital to apply to a worker by buying him a shovel cannot compete with productivity of a business, that has enough investment capital to buy a worker an excavator.

A worker with better tools/infrastructure/training is a more productive worker. These things come out of investment capital, and you stand for destruction of investment capital with large government, taxes and regulations, which inevitably ends pushing the investment capital out of your economy into economies that are comparatively less restrained by government, which allows a more efficient use of the capital.

so you don't understand history. for you, history starts in 1917

- stupid and false.

Re:mafia party

[Vitriol Angst]

Can we MOD this up to 11 please?

You nailed it quite succinctly. The COMPLAINTS about our systems are not necessarily "anti-capitalism" -- they are anti-corruption. And as you point out, corruption is inevitable if you don't make RULES that force the market to remain open.

The reason the OWS protests are in front of Wall Street and not the Government -- is that they recognize that Hank Paulson allows Obama to be President -- not the other way around.

Re:mafia party

[Vitriol Angst]

capitalism is an economic system that can exist within different political systems, what you don't understand is that capitalism is not itself a political system. ... When a company like BP has so much money and we have an ELECTION system that requires money and can take it from Corporations -- that means a lot of Judges and Politicians OWE BP. Your semantic point doesn't change the reality of the situation; Capitalism without restraint BECOMES the government.

Haiti, Mexico, Honduras and many other totalitarian and awful places to be poor are "run" by Capitalists. It doesn't matter what political system you begin with if any group outside the government is calling the shots.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

No, it should be at -11 'useful idiot'.

The corruption is inevitable specifically because the government is there to steal and sell power, and only large, powerful government has power to sell.

The government must not be allowed to steal power and to sell it to high bidders, that's the way to create corruption - to have large government that regulates everything.

The OWS protesters don't understand what the problem is, some of their 'demands' display this quite clearly.

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Capitalism again, is a way to use savings from your over-production and under-consumption in order to reinvest to create more productive capacity, to make your production more effective.

What you are talking about has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with government stealing the power and selling it to the highest bidders.

If capitalists can put the highest bid upon the power that is sold, then it just shows how good capitalism is at building up capital savings, not that capitalism is somehow causing the corruption.

The corruption is in government stealing and selling power.

Re:mafia party

[Vitriol Angst]

I'm with CircleTimesSquare on this .... "Big Government" is a useless term.

What you meant to say is "strong centralized government" -- which should be understood independent on how much money is spent, or how many people hired to work for government.

We have a military and about 1 million people working in organizations like; TSA, NSA, HMS, CIA, etc. I think we could SHRINK that part.
We also have bureaucrats who do reports on economics. We have the FDA, EPA, CDC -- all necessary functions if they weren't corrupted by a corrupt government and lobbying.

The "size" is independent of its power. And if Government could shut down a company like BP when it failed to follow it's regulations and destroyed an ocean -- then other companies wouldn't be using actuarial tables to decide if they can "get away with" risking public life and the environment.

Our election system and fundraising, mean that we have a WEAK Government, that is dependent on corporate money and therefore is totally under its influence.

Re:mafia party

[Vitriol Angst]

I think the BEST example of "profits before people" is the Irish Potato famine.

All tyrannies can be chalked up to; "Unresponsive to the common good of the people."

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

I don't know what your position is, my position is that the government that is originally set up on principles of maximum individual liberties must not be allowed to change the laws within the system, because any law change leads away from the principles of maximizing individual liberties.

There should be as little government possible as it takes to run basic function of government - border protection. Everything else should not be authorized to a federal government anyway, and no business or money policy should be authorized to any government.

Government must be weak, because strong government is the kind of government that stole the powers not authorized to it and it's selling those powers to people with money.

Just because capitalism allows people to build up capital savings does not mean capitalism leads to corruption, it's the strong government that leads to corruption, because strong government steals and sells power. People with money then can buy power and there are people with money among capitalists.

Re:mafia party

[Alex Belits]

Ayn Rand, aren't you supposed to be dead?

Re:mafia party

[shentino]

The problem with american capitalism is that government influence is a commodity.

Re:mafia party

[shentino]

Why do we need government in the first place?

Answer that, and you'll have the answer to everything else that is wrong.

Re:mafia party

[Cyberax]

"Capitalism + free market is an economic model that increases the wealth of all people"

That's definitely not true. There are tons of capitalistic societies that are working on increasing wealth of top ruling people. A lot of countries in South America come to mind.

Capitalism with sufficient oversight _can_ be made to work on increasing wealth of most people, but it definitely doesn't happen automagically.

Re:mafia party

[circletimessquare]

next time try thinking instead of dictating (ironically enough ;-)

you didn't respond, you just performed the perfect kneejerk. i supposed that is as close as i will get to an admission from you that i've actually made a impression on your closed mind on the subject

so be it

Re:mafia party

[circletimessquare]

you oppose the idea that there can be sources of tyranny outside of the government. so you are a closed minded fool. a shame, we have enough useless braindead partisans in this world. please try thinking again at some point in your life, right now, you are a useless repeater

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Everything you say is a knee jerk, so you should know. There is no reason to have a 'discussion' with somebody like you.

Don't you have something to do, like disperse poison in some Jonestown?

Re:mafia party

[roman_mir]

Nonsense. There can be plenty of tyranny outside of government.

Of-course outside of government tyranny is a 2 way street, only government has legitimacy to force itself upon citizens, supported by the court system and whatever joke of a law that exists, but it is the law.

Nothing that a private person or enterprise does amounts to a law and that's what your small head can't fit into itself apparently.

Re:mafia party

[Anonymous Coward]

Inside of government tyranny is also a 2 way street. You can only be oppressed by your government for as long as you allow yourself to be oppressed. Move out, protest, or even out right rebellion if you think its necessary. If you really think the law and the system are a joke, fight it.

Or if you have the money, embrace the system and use it for your own purposes (read: use your money to bribe your own politicians and gain political power yourself. It's "dirty", but hey it works)

It's not the easy option, but the option exists. You might not even succeed (government has more/bigger guns than most private individuals/entities), but the option exists.

The thing about tyrants like government is that they aren't going to just happily give away their power. You have to fight them for it. And complaining on the Internet is one of the least effective ways to fight the tyrants. I mean, if they really wanted to, they could... oh I don't know... launch a DDoS attack on /. ;p

Old Russian Computers Ran on Diesel or Wood?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

[masternerdguy]

In soviet russia, voters elect representatives.

United Russia is comparatively moderate...

[the linux geek]

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

Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate...

[thoughtlover]

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

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

Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate...

[shutdown -p now]

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

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

Re:United Russia is comparatively moderate...

[shutdown -p now]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Hitler

[orphiuchus]

Yea... He really didn't.

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

The Courts

[Atmchicago]

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

Re:The Courts

[shutdown -p now]

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

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

[shutdown -p now]

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

wonder how Alyona Show will cover this

[decora]

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

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

Re:ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/

[Nimey]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Not so fast

[SuurMyy]

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

Re:Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[M. Baranczak]

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

- Woody Allen

look beyond the party slogans

[tetromino]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

This Damn Internet

[artifactual]

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

A statistical graph demonstrating election fraud

[temcat]

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

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

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

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

[mark_elf]

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

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

[shutdown -p now]

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

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

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

Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[Tom]

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

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

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

[amiga3D]

Damn. That's brilliant.

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

[shutdown -p now]

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

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

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

[PaulBu]

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

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

In Liberty,

Pavel B.

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

[roman_mir]

I did.

Agreed now! Sorry!

[PaulBu]

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

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

Paul B.

GV write-up of DDOS attacks

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a good compendium of DDOS attacks around election day. Also a link to an analysis [in Russian] of where it was coming from, with this bit translated into English: "The attack is conducted from a big botnet [a network of infected computers] distributed all around the world - a lot of attacking computers are located in the United States, China, and other countries. There are few Russian IP addresses."

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/12/05/russia-election-day-ddos-alypse/

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatives include e.g. the guy who became famous by saying things like "Russian soldiers shall wash their boots in the Indian ocean".

If he weren't anti-Semitic, he'd be worth considering. I certainly have no problems with Russia conquering everything from Kazakhstan right down to Pakistan - and if they, unlike the West, nuke all Jihadi sites in between, especially in Pakistan & Afghanistan, it'll be a lot easier for everyone in the region. If the reward for that is them washing their boots in the Indian Ocean, fine, go for it. I'd certainly prefer that to a regime that has no problems with Iran & Syria getting nukes.

Re:Hitler

[MightyMartian]

If Bush had acted like Hitler, the 2000 election would have been the last one. If there was electoral fraud it wouldn't be the first, and some of the most notorious instances in US history have been in Democrat-controlled areas.

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

[shutdown -p now]

He's anti-Semitic? With a family name of Edelstein at birth (he changed it to his mother's family name at 18), that would be quite a feat.

Russia actually was a computing pioneer

[decora]

back in the 1890s, the guy who would later start this little company called IBM got the Czar to use his calculating machines to record their census.

later in the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union was one of IBM's biggest customers. it's hard to have a centrally planned economy for 100 million people without an awful lot of math and tabulation. this story has been basically, untold in history. wait 5 years, im writing a book on it.

10 diff posts, 10 diff definitions of capitalism

[decora]

something tells me that either we have no idea what 'capitalism' is, or it is a term that has no actual meaning, and we should probably just stop using it, like the way people in the 16th century should have stopped using the term 'black bile'.

Indic ocean?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to achieve that would be Russia joining the NATO. NATO soldiers are already in Afghanistan -- who knows: Iran next?

(Sometimes reality comes up with worse jokes than fantasy can contrive)

stone crusher

[Anonymous Coward]

stone crusher

coal mill
Chancador
Machacadora
mobile crusher

[url=http://www.stonecrushermobile.org]stone crusher[/url]
[url=http://www.trackmobilecrushers.com]mobile crusher[/url]
[url=http://www.konusnye-drobilki.ru] [/url]
[url=http://www.coal-mill.net]coal mill[/url]
[url=http://www.chancador.org]chancador[/url]
[url=http://www.trituradoras-machacadora.mx]Machacadora[/url]

stone crusher manufacturer

trituradoras
coal crusher
track mounted crusher

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but in Soviet Russia, a serious discussion submits you!

Re:ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight-up Windows 9x/3.1 stuff there. What the hell? Slashdot Trolls are the strangest...

Normal visitors' surge

[Max_W]

I guess these were the normal visitors. People do not trust official information sources and visit opposition websites. All they had to do is to prepare light versions for such a surge. Anyway the website of Echo of Moscow radio is up again.

Re:10 diff posts, 10 diff definitions of capitalis

[Alex Belits]

Actually it's what Capitalist propaganda wants people to do, just like how it redefines other terms. If you don't have a word for "Alien Overlord" in a world ruled by alien overlords, would you be able to imagine lack of them?

Re:10 diff posts, 10 diff definitions of capitalis

[roman_mir]

Well, majority of people don't know anything about anything.

I provide the correct definition - capitalism is use of over-production and under-consumption in order to achieve savings that become the investment capital, that is used to increase the efficiencies by paying for better/more/newer tools and/or land/labor, which are then organized to achieve more profit that in turn becomes capital savings that again can be used to increase efficiency and achieve more profit.

Many people on /. have no idea what capitalism is, in fact they are even confused on simple basics, such as that capitalism doesn't require competition. Capitalism doesn't require competition, it only requires over-production / under-consumption and a way to store the savings to build up the capital.

They have gone to EU as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Well bad news is that likely those guys are not sticking withing their geographical borders.
In Latvia (part of the Baltic states - very east part of EU) there is Russia backed major political party.
Private email of one of parties leaders got hacked and leaked to the press, after which certain news portal started to publish certain compromising details.
Guess what?! Site is now constantly out of service due to DDoS attacks and thus basically unusable.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. That's brilliant.

That's also John Kenneth Galbraith