Slashdot Mirror


VK CEO Fired, Says Company Under Kremlin Control

An anonymous reader writes "The embattled founder of VK, Russia's largest social networking site, said this week that the company is now 'under the complete control' of two oligarchs with close ties to President Vladimir Putin. In a VK post published Monday, Pavel Durov said he's been fired as CEO of the website, claiming that he was pushed out on a technicality, and that he only heard of it through media reports."

149 comments

  1. Sorry for lame joke but by alphatel · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, status updates you!

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Sorry for lame joke but by fey000 · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, book FaceYou!

    2. Re:Sorry for lame joke but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Russia, Media Socializes YOU.

    3. Re:Sorry for lame joke but by Alef · · Score: 1

      Lame? For once, it was actualy a very clever variation of it.

    4. Re:Sorry for lame joke but by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Putin Russia, just like Soviet Russia but with better suits.

  2. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US should resume its former campaign of organising cope d'etat in communist countries. Russia is clearly out of control.

    1. Re:Surprised? by fey000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US should resume its former campaign of organising cope d'etat in communist countries. Russia is clearly out of control.

      You use the word communist, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

    2. Re:Surprised? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Former Soviet Union reconstituting. Putin saying collapse of Soviet Union mistake. Yeah I think he used the term correctly.

    3. Re:Surprised? by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Putin seems to want the USSR back but without Communism as its form of government, though still with the USSR's authoritarianism. Kind of like how China isn't really Communist anymore.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Surprised? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The Soviet Union was not communist. Like China it was state run capitalism. All countries are capitalist, with varying degrees of openness.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a trait unique to "communist" countries. Here we just make them resign.

    6. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Kind of like how China isn't really Communist anymore.
      workers.org and a bunch of other communist rags seem to still think they are...

    7. Re:Surprised? by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fascism is far more apt for Russia's state of government under Putin than Communism.

    8. Re:Surprised? by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      Communism is a term referring to an evil form of government that really really really evil governments incorrectly call themselves in order to only sound a little evil.

      Has there ever been a truly, absolutely qualifiable communist government?

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    9. Re:Surprised? by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      Would it really be such a bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back? The offered a balance of power. With the exception of a couple proxy wars (not that they weren't bad) we kept each other in check, but never checkmate. Compared to now, the world did its own thing. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we immediately elevated ourselves to the status of, "United States of America: Full-Time World Cop." That has not gone well. I sometimes miss the sanity of mutually assured destruction.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    10. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.

    11. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The soviet Union was as much communist as possible in the real world.

    12. Re:Surprised? by SQL+Error · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.

      I agree with that for the most part (and history bears you out with regards to Communism). However, Fascism doesn't tie itself to a specific, unworkable, economic theory; it accepts capitalism so long as the state maintains control. Which is is a very prominent factor in Russia of late, possibly even more than in China.

    13. Re:Surprised? by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would it really be such a bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back?

      Yes. The Soviet Union was a nightmare state.

      The offered a balance of power. With the exception of a couple proxy wars (not that they weren't bad) we kept each other in check, but never checkmate. Compared to now, the world did its own thing.

      Tell that to Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Not to mention North Korea and Vietnam. I'm sure they enjoyed doing their "own thing".

      After the fall of the Soviet Union, we immediately elevated ourselves to the status of, "United States of America: Full-Time World Cop." That has not gone well. I sometimes miss the sanity of mutually assured destruction.

      What? Seriously, what? How old are you? Do you actually remember the Cold War?

      The fact that America is a flawed nation is no excuse for false equivalencies with brutal totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. Those countries, under those leaders, deliberately killed tens of millions of their own people. We never want to see anything like that again.

    14. Re:Surprised? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Probably doesn't know what cope d'etat means, either.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Surprised? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Yes, it would be a very bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back, a disaster of epic proportions. Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century. Such tyranny has seldom been equaled.

      If you miss the "sanity" of Soviet times, you are woefully ignorant about events, badly confused, or a madman. Perhaps you could start smaller, such a suggesting widespread castration because it "calms" men?

      If you really miss an ever present threat against you then you could try a visit a tribal society and start a blood feud?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have many older relatives who remember East Germany, and life behind the Iron Curtain.

      Trust me... whining about the NSA is a lot less of an issue than ending up on the wrong end of a Stasi secret police purge.

      Plus, it is nice to be able to go across Berlin without getting killed on the spot.

      Incoming Russian propagandists... the US isn't perfect, but I'd recommend reading stories from people who lived before the fall of the USSR. They are scary, and I hope we never come back to those days.

    17. Re:Surprised? by SQL+Error · · Score: 2

      Communism is an economic theory that can't work in theory - it centralises economic planning leading to an insoluble information processing scaling problem, while at the same time destroying precisely the information (prices) that are needed to make sensible decisions - and has been proven not to work in practice. There have been plenty of Communist states. They all failed spectacularly, generally displaying massive corruption and brutal oppression as they did so.

      They may not have looked like you imagine Communism should look, but that's because Communism cannot function at the scale of a nation-state, not in the real world, not with real people. And an economic theory that doesn't work unless people stop acting like people is not a very good theory.

    18. Re:Surprised? by Nimey · · Score: 2

      That's propaganda. They have the form of Communism but not the function.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    19. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The generally popular view in the post-Soviet space is that dissolution of the Union was a mistake (post-Soviet space refers to the former SSRs, aka the Union, proper, not the Warsaw pact states, which were never part of the Union - the distinction is important). People want the Union back, but without the communism. It's a matter of security and economics, as well as socio-cultural/historic considerations and being part of something bigger.

      Much of the post-soviet space is heavily dependent on Russia for survival in both the economic and military sense. The funny thing is that the idea of expanding the CIS into a Union State was in fact neither Putin nor Russia's idea, it was proposed by Kazakhstan, though rejected by Belarus and Russia initially, until '99 when the Union State of Belarus and Russia was created. That eventually expanded into the Customs Union of Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan, and is currently transitioning into the Eurasian Union with the ascension of Armenia as a full member. All the while, the CSTO (Eurasian/post-soviet NATO) is in the process of expanding to include Iran, and potentially Syria, depending on the outcome of the war.

      The Eurasian Union is like the CCCPv2.0 in that it involves mostly the same players, but it's a lot more like a combination of the EU and NATO. I

      Unless I missed the memo and "communism" has been redefined to mean "a union of states", then think what you want, but the term is being used incorrectly.

    20. Re:Surprised? by geekmux · · Score: 0

      That's propaganda. They have the form of Communism but not the function.

      Ah, well then it's much like the US Government propaganda. We have a form of a Constitution, but none of the Rights.

    21. Re:Surprised? by SQL+Error · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      Perhaps the simplest thing would be to point out that while America might be building walls to keep unwelcome visitors out, the Soviet Union built walls to keep its people in. A state that needs to imprison its entire population is not a state that has any right to exist.

      I'm really not sure why we even need to discuss this. Assuming people are too young to personally remember this, were they also asleep during their history classes?

    22. Re:Surprised? by tomkost · · Score: 0

      Correct, the political systems you mentioned plus modern day US Democracy/Capitalism are all different "skins" on Oligarchy. That's what it really comes down to. A rich few controlling everyone else and gobbling more wealth for themselves as fast as they can.

    23. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Yes, Fascism allows for a measure of capitalism, but strongly controlled by the government, which is very far from Laissez-faire capitalism, farther than any capitalist regimen we have nowadays in the developed world and closer to a communist regimen. I have to agree that Russia is closer to a fascist capitalist state than it ever was, but I have to disagree in China's case. China is still closer to communism than anything else, and I explain: the easiest way to measure if some country is closer to be a capitalist or communist regimen is how much of the GDP is directly controlled by the government.

    24. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      US current system, despite its many problems, is still far less oligarchic than almost any other country in the world and certainly far less authoritarian. The truth is, the idea of State is inherently linked to oligarchic structures of power and democracy does not change this and never will. What varies is how much power the State (and the oligarchy that composes it) has over the common people.

    25. Re:Surprised? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Probably doesn't know what cope d'etat means, either.

      Probably can't spell "coup d'etat" either....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes... the no true scotsman fallacy.

    27. Re:Surprised? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Assuming people are too young to personally remember this, were they also asleep during their history classes?

      What, young people get history classes now?

      Being somewhat older, and having spent a sizable chunk of my childhood near the Inner German Border, I remember this quite well.

      My daughter? Not so much....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:Surprised? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Communism arose from the notions of self sustaining communes. It's not scalable, but is very widespread.
      Your family is communist. The Amish are communists. However, having the whole country communist dos not work because we don't trust each other.

    29. Re:Surprised? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Pfft. You've never seen anyone being made to quarter soldiers in their homes, have you?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    30. Re:Surprised? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      This makes the Russian media's use of "Fascists!!!!1" to describe anyone the Kremlin doesn't like deliciously ironic.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    31. Re:Surprised? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know what they teach you kids in schools these days, but in my time, words used to have definitive meaning that would pass through generations. Maybe that doesn't jibe with all your "living document" BS. Communism is a political theory. It exists only in books, not in life.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    32. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      In my experience the term "fascist" has become the general classification for someone that is considered the enemy. :)

    33. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      My family was not communist nor have any society developed by humans really communist. When I was a kid it was always very clear what was property of my father, of my mother, of my siblings and mine. I could ask them and borrow stuff, but the property was clear for many many things, and although there was some public property at home, but there was a clear hierarchy of control of this property.

    34. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, kinda:

      http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

    35. Re:Surprised? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Estonia. It actually was't too bad.
      Your turn.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    36. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's propaganda. They have the form of Communism but not the function.

      Ah, well then it's much like the US Government propaganda. We have a form of a Constitution, but none of the Rights.

      Constitution defines what you are made of, what the government can do, their limits, which is not at all the same as defining your rights. The US Government does have a Constitution, but I'm not sure exactly WHICH rights you think that that automatically should come with?

      Think about various people's rights in this country before the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th amendments.
      http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

      It's a constant evolution, and hard work. It always will be, and it always has been. The people who wrote the United states Constitution knew that, and since you said "we", YOU should know that.

    37. Re:Surprised? by Megol · · Score: 1

      And this Communism have in common with any ideology. That's the reason current _functional_ states uses a flexible, adaptable design. It may not work well but it's probably as close to perfection possible with humans involved.

    38. Re:Surprised? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know what they teach you kids in schools these days, but in my time, words used to have definitive meaning that would pass through generations.

      Ah yes, I remember being taught that myth too. Alas, the reality of language has never been that simple, in any time.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    39. Re:Surprised? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Indeed. No system ever lives up to its ideals, but they still matter. They can make a difference even when they aren't ever realized.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    40. Re:Surprised? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Regardless, communism never existed outside the textbooks. The feeble and distorted attempt to make it happen does not count. It is a theory that does not take natural biological tendencies of humans into account.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    41. Re:Surprised? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it was Soviet Estonia then your parents or grandparents weren't among the victims of repression or deportation, although they might be among the ethnic Russians moved there by the Soviet Union. (Ethnic Russian by any chance?) Those would be among the ethnic Russians that Putin has threatened other countries over.

      Just a snippet of history: Soviet deportations from Estonia in 1940s

      The Soviet Union had started preparations for the launch of terror in Estonian civil society already before the occupation of Estonia. As elsewhere, the purpose of communist terror was to suppress any possible resistance from the very beginning and to inculcate great fear among people in order to rule out any kind of organised general resistance movement in the future as well. In Estonia, the planned extermination of the prominent and active persons, as well as the displacement of large groups of people were intended to destroy the Estonian society and economy. The lists of people to be repressed were prepared well in advance. From the files of the Soviet security organs, it seems that already in the early 1930’s the Soviet security organs had collected data on persons to be subjected to repressions. Pursuant to the instructions issued in 1941, the following people in the territories to be annexed into the Soviet Union and their family members were to be subjected to repression: all the members of the former governments, higher state officials and judges, higher military personnel, former politicians, members of voluntary state defence organisations, members of student organisations, persons having actively participated in anti-Soviet armed combat, Russian émigrés, security police officers and police officers, representatives of foreign companies and in general all people having contacts abroad, entrepreneurs and bankers, clergymen and members of the Red Cross. Approximately 23 percent of the population belonged to these categories. In fact, the number of those actually subjected to repressions was much greater, for a large number of people not included in the lists also fell victim to the settlement of scores.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    42. Re:Surprised? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, deregulated markets also lead to centralized planning, and it doesn't cease to be a problem when the central planning occurs in a corporate boardroom instead of a politburo. I find it ironic that since the collapse of the Soviet system, America has been moving closer and closer to centrally planned economies, with power consolidating in a few (sometimes even one) corporation in every major market sector, while the supposed anti-communist party cheers on and aids in the deregulation, forgetting that a true free market requires regulation, or it soon is captured by the biggest fish and ceases to be a free market in any meaningful sense.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    43. Re:Surprised? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Would it really be such a bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back?

      Are you friggen nuts? The Soviet Union had a very bad habit (Russia to a lesser degree today) where all the information is controlled and monitored by the state... there is was no independent press, no independent branches of government, no limited elections, no freedom of movement....

    44. Re:Surprised? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The US is relatively low in authoritarianism but relatively high in oligarchy - right up there with Russia and China. Look at how much it costs to get elected in the US, how stagnant the pool of candidates is, and the average net worth of the ruling class and tell me they are one of the least oligarchic countries.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    45. Re:Surprised? by tomkost · · Score: 1

      Hence my use of the phrase "modern day". My belief is that power/and money were less concentrated here in the US in the past. Certainly the oligarchs in the US are more brazen and open about it. Is the US more fair and open than Russia and other systems. Possibly but not the extent it used to be. I suggest that the size and strength of the middle class is the best indicator of health and fairness.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

      I still believe US is the best place to live all things considered, but we need to change course a bit or it won't stay that way for future generations.

    46. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the fall of the Soviet Union, we immediately elevated ourselves to the status of, "United States of America: Full-Time World Cop."

      Ever heard of WW2? The US didn't elevate itself to anything. The US filled a power vacuum and maintained one of the longest continual and most explosive movements of prosperity and progress in human history despite attempts from others to stifle such success. This power vacuum was caused by a serious lack of testosterone in many European countries which resulted in their subsequent ass kicking by a vegetarian artist.

    47. Re:Surprised? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It may not work well but it's probably as close to perfection possible with humans involved.

      Relevant 1-panel comic:

      http://lh3.ggpht.com/-h7v6JeQ5...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    48. Re:Surprised? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I hope that if you haven't already done so that you make some time to share some of those memories with her. It would be mark of shame on the generation that lived through it if the memory of communist oppression were to disappear quickly, especially since there are still communists straining for another chance to try building communism again.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    49. Re:Surprised? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Libertarians don't want a free market in a meaningful (practical) sense. They want deregulation, consequences be damned.

      Libertarians are a lot like communists. If a state fails under their system, it's because it didn't follow their ideology closely enough and the moment a system does meet the ideal exactly, it will be a utopia, you'll see!

      Although bordering on a state may also be enough to prevent utopia (See: Somalia - I keep hearing that the government-controlled compound in the capital is a big sticking point).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    50. Re:Surprised? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I should add that I've only discussed the Somalia option with libertarians who say they hate government so much that they'd prefer anarchy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    51. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism without property rights is merely window dressing and this is what we see. Any entity that makes large profits in Russia is taken over by Putin's cronies and stolen from the rightful owners / founders. This is just the latest example. This prevents investment in the country and hurts them long term but keeps Putin and his buddies happy.

    52. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said! You replied well to the kind of shallow insipid nonsense that passes for intellectualism these days,. Any idiot with an internet connection comes online and pronounces such idiotic and dangerous ahistorical nonsense as if they're being thoughtful.

    53. Re:Surprised? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the "no true communist" fallacy. Surely you don't believe it? There has been no shortage of communists over the years willing to exterminate the class according to Marx's bloody theories (14:16-23:16) to try building yet another Marxist "uptopia" of collectivism and a dictatorship of the proletariat. What makes you so certain you've got it right and none of those other millions that called themselves communists didn't?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    54. Re:Surprised? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Estonia. It actually was't too bad.
      Your turn.

      Most likely depends on what branch of the tree you and your family were part of.

    55. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Communism will never work because people like to own stuff" - Frank Zappa

    56. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An Irishman, an American, and an Aussie are talking about republicans. The Irishman describes a bunch of pro-Soviet Socialists who never go to Church (but insist they're Catholic), and think the world would be a better place if someone blew the Royal Family into tiny little bits. The American is talking about a bunch of knee-jerk Anti-Soviets who describe everything they dislike as "socialist," go to religious services at least twice a week, are (mostly) Protestant, and secretly have a major crush on the Royal Family. The Aussie is somewhat generically left-wing in economic terms, doesn't give too shits about religion one way or the other, and thinks the Queen should stop being Queen of Australia but otherwise should be left alone because she's a nice old lady. Whose lying?

      The answer is nobody. The word "Republican" has been used by so many political movements over the years that hearing someone is "Republican" without hearing a lot more context tells you precisely jack-squat. "Democrat," "Liberal," "Conservative," etc. are almost as bad.

      It's gets even worse with Communism because Communists have never been able to agree on much beyond that one song.

    57. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That's a very superficial definition of "meaningful."

      As a highly educated, under-employed left-wing with intellectual pretensions a CPUSA takeover would probably result in me getting a promotion and a raise. I might get purged by my new bosses eventually, but in the short term it would be great for me.

      OTOH it's likely I'd be the first target of a Fascist government. "First they came for the Communists, then they came for the Trade Unionists," the Jews only get mentioned third.

      So yes, if there was an Evil Party takeover of the US, 50 years after it was destroyed our descendents likely wouldn't care very much whether it was Fascist or Communist because either way a lot of innocents die and freedom goes away, but for those of us who actually have to live through the damn thing it is incredibly important which Evil Party takes over.

    58. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what the US was up to after WWII, as described by George Catlett Marshall, general and statesman: "Whether we like it or not, we find ourselves, our nation, in a world position of vast responsibility. We can act for our own good by acting for the world's good."

      What was the CCCP up to after WWI? Tossing Czech democrats out of windows* and refusing to move back from countries they were supposed to abandon after liberating them from the Nazis, thus creating the Iron Curtain. Go read up on Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, or Poland in 1970 and let me know what you think about the CCCP.

      Were/are we perfect? No. Was it better than the USSR? Certainly.

      Do we need to go back to a world of proxy wars and Mutually Assured Destruction with a 20-minute fuse for complete world destruction**? No.

      * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Masaryk#Death

      ** go look up how many times we almost blew each other up by accident due to system failure, human error, or sheer cussedness

    59. Re:Surprised? by joh · · Score: 1

      Communism is an economic theory that can't work in theory - it centralises economic planning

      This isn't Communism. It's Socialism. In Communism nothing is centralized, there even isn't a state or a government, nobody owns anything, everybody does his best and takes only what he needs.

      Socialism was meant as the first step on the road to Communism and of course Communism never works apart from exceptional circumstances in small communities for a short while. It's a lovely daydream of "wouldn't it be great if...". Well, but it isn't.

    60. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be mixing up concept of Russian Empire with Communism. While latter had fair of former, reverse need not be the case -- Putin is obviously obsessing about power of Mother Russia. But as to his interest in communism, who knows (or cares). In fact, his political direction is much more accurately described as "nationalistic" (with fair bit of "imperialistic" extensions).

    61. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I won't contend that US is ruled by a oligarchy, but you are wrong if you think it is different anywhere else or that US is more oligarchic than European countries, for example. US is still less oligarchic than most developed countries, and a lot less Oligarchic than any third world country.

    62. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Yes, power and money were indeed less concentrated in the past, mostly because the government was smaller, didn't try to regulate everything, and as consequence cronyism was less prevalent, but that is not a phenomenon exclusive to US. It has happened all around the world. Governs keep increasing in size and power and as they grow cronyism gets more and more prevalent.

      Governments are necessary to make life in society possible, but what people forget is that they are a necessary evil. Governs existence is based on violence and coercion, and the only thing that keeps it in check is the threat of insurrection from the ruled people. When that threat becomes minimum due to gargantuan size governments the tendency is a one sided road to totalitarianism.

      If you are interested in the subject I recommend "The Road to Serfdom" from Hayek.

    63. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      That is where you are wrong my friend. Unless you become part of the ruling elite, being highly educated will only guarantee that you will be explored (if the area where you are educated is useful) and your current quality of life will decrease. You will work more and receive less for it. Uneducated people may find a temporary increase in their quality of life, until the inevitable supply crisis that will follow, after which everybody but those that were in the very poorest strata of the population will be a lot worse than they are today. that was the pattern every single time a communist party took over in human History.

      You would have more chances in a Nazist or Fascist take over, but the end results would be the same.

      But my point is not related to your personal status, which would be about the same in the end anyway. It is about the nature of the regimen itself. For an outside observer there is a very small ruling elite and their slaves.

    64. Re:Surprised? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No meaningful difference in terms of freedom, but there can be a huge difference in economics. Ie, rich person under the fascist state has a good chance of continuing to make money, and maybe get a lot of good state business, even if not a party member. But under a communist nation is going to be out of business. Meanwhile a factory worker in a communist nation, if also a party member and not a peasant, will have an increase in income for a short period of time (until the system collapses or corruption takes hold). Middle class loses out with communism but stays mostly the same in fascist nations, assuming the middle class person is aligned with party ideals and isn't an undesirable and has no undesirable family members. Peasants lose badly under all systems.

    65. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I'd be dead if the Fascists or Nazis took over. I like Unions. The independent kind. They really, really, really don't like independent Unions.I am the first one on the damn death train if Fascism happens.

      As for the Communists, joining the elite would be the reason I got the raise. Since the alternative to joining the elite would be an assassination in Mexico City, I'd almost certainly join the elite. If I could find some out-of-the-way, unimportant job nobody would notice my earnings would have tripled at very little risk.

      And you really haven;t read anything on either system if you think of citizens of either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as "slaves." The USSR paid it's lowest earners more then they earn today, which is a major reason Putin can get away with Soviet nostalgia. The entire point of the Nazi system was that it was designed to loot all of Europe so that ordinary Germans would never have to sacrifice again. Poles were put on starvation rations. Literally. The ration card for an ethnic Pole did not supply enough calories to survive. In Greece the Germans simply confiscated all the food, causing a major famine. They made peace with the Vichy, then refused to return any French PoWs because those PoWs made really good slaves.

      So yes, both systems had a lot of slaves, but they also had a lot of masters (all of Russia, and all of Germany). The ruling elites did even better then the favored nations, but they didn't do better then the current US Elite does. Especially the Soviet elites. They didn't have the money to buy an apartment in Manhattan until they got rid of Communism.

    66. Re:Surprised? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      During the Stalin era or afterwords? And are you Estonian or Russian?

      I agree though in later days that a lot of things in many Warsaw pact countries weren't as abysmal as the west portrayed them. Unless of course you were a dissident or in the GDR or Romania.

      But even in the worst eras in the US there was more freedom than in the best days in the Soviet Union.

    67. Re:Surprised? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Former Soviet Union reconstituting. Putin saying collapse of Soviet Union mistake. Yeah I think he used the term correctly.

      Are they going to call it the Russian Empire this time round?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    68. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      The elite in a totalitarian regimen is a very restricted group, my friend and more so in a communist regimen. Your chances of joining it would be very slim, but if you dream of being a slave owner who and I to shatter your dreams?

      And yes the "citizens" in any authoritarian regimen are slaves, they work whenever and wherever their rulers order them to, they can't go away, they live wherever they are ordered to live and they own nothing the state can't take from them anytime it wishes. Their very lives are conditional to the whim of their owners. That is the very definition of slavery.

    69. Re:Surprised? by dkf · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union got in the habit of centralised plan/command economies due to the civil wars that happened immediately after the (second) revolution in 1917. It is arguably not clear therefore that such mechanisms are the way that communism must be. (I wouldn't count the majority of other communist states that existed in Europe in the 20th century at all, as the political/economic system there was mostly about being Russian vassals. The real exception there is Yugoslavia, and that was a timebomb after the death of Tito.)

      A more serious criticism against communism is that it is excessively idealistic and fails to account for high-functioning psychopaths (you know, the CEO/oligarch types) sufficiently well. Which isn't to say that capitalism is hugely better, either, but at least there it tries to lay a path open so that what benefits them can benefit everyone else too. Relying on appeals to someone's better nature though, that truly won't work.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    70. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The elite in a totalitarian regimen is a very restricted group, my friend and more so in a communist regimen. Your chances of joining it would be very slim, but if you dream of being a slave owner who and I to shatter your dreams?

      You got any facts to back these assertions up? As in any, at all? Maybe a hard number, taken from actual data on these countries? Because if you seriously thing an elite the size you're describing could run anything you are a fucking moron. You need 2-5% of the country to be your administrators, and you need political support of at least 20%, or you die like Mubarak. Or Kruschev, who was un-done bny a vote of the Communist Party, most of whom couldn't be told the secret bits of the deal ending the Cuban Missile Crisis.

      At the moment my working theory is you're a troll. And you must be a really shitty one for the Aspie to notice by the third post. Yo gonna have to find a fact soon troll. An actual fact, not something you heard a Libertarian say once.

      And yes the "citizens" in any authoritarian regimen are slaves, they work whenever and wherever their rulers order them to, they can't go away, they live wherever they are ordered to live and they own nothing the state can't take from them anytime it wishes. Their very lives are conditional to the whim of their owners. That is the very definition of slavery.

      And how much of that do you think went on in either country?

      Under the Soviet System if you weren't in a Gulag you could change jobs at will. A promotion would require party approval, but if you're an Auto-worker who just can't stand the third shift supervisor nobody was gonna stop you from moving to another shift. Moving to a better place generally required the approval of the Party, but the Party also didn't tend to evict people. That would have been dumb tactics. It would piss them off, creating a potential opponent of the regime, without actually controlling said opponent.

      The Nazis had an actual free market. You could move house, quit your job, retire, unretire, etc. and you were fine.

      Now in both systems you could rapidly lose all this freedom if you pissed off the ruling party, but there's a slight difference between "all economic freedom belongs to everyone who hasn't pissed off the Fuhrer," and "I'm sorry Bob, but I owed that man in Texas $1,500, and a pretty girl like your daughter is worth precisely that. You niggers won't even miss her next month. Hell I did a favor to you, giving her son to that auctioneer for $50, you won't have to raise him yourself."

    71. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      At the moment my working theory is you're a troll.

      Says the slave owner to be...

      I think you need a fresh dose of reality if you believe in the absurd you just wrote. A slave is a slave and the difference you pointed is irrelevant for any person that pissed the wrong bureaucrat or any girls anyone in power fancied. Many slaves in US lived better than normal people in the former USSR or Nazi Europe. At the very least they had the assurance that they wouldn't starve, because they were valuable property not disposable property like in Communist regimens.

    72. Re:Surprised? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Yes, Fascism allows for a measure of capitalism, but strongly controlled by the government, which is very far from Laissez-faire capitalism

      Fascism is the ultimate expression of capitalism. It is essentially a corporate state run by oligarchs or plutarchs. The regimes of Mussolini and the Nazi's would never have gotten off the ground without the help of the titans of industry in their countries.

      You're right that it's different from laissez-faire capitalism, but laissez-faire is an unworkable economic system because it assumes monopolistic behaviour does not exist and people are rational, so all attempts at laissez-faire capitalism end up in a form of fascism as the most powerful capitalist entities take control. Laissez-faire is extreme, anarchistic capitalism and has the same fundamental problem as communism (extreme, anarchistic socialism), it assumes people aren't greedy and wont try to grab more (power/money) for themselves. Of course this is wrong, so attempts at communism end up as despotic socialist states and attempts at Laissez-faire end up as despotic fascist states.

      This is one of the key reasons why most western nations operate mixed economies, neither purely capitalist nor socialist and changing as circumstances require. Ultimately, inflexible economic systems are doomed to failure.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    73. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your brain is thoroughly washed. If you go to Vietnam, that war is called the American War. America was the evil aggressor murdering civilians in ridiculous numbers. Your statements are not based on a single iota of truth. I would like you to provide a reference to the "tens of millions of their own people". Stalin. Was a great leader. You would be lucky if you had a president with 1% of Stalins abilities to guide its people and government. And knowing that you are full of shit and will never be able to back up your fairy tales, I will give you facts. During the 23 years of Stalins leadership, 3.5 million people were sent to Gulags for work and re-education. 648,000 were executed. NOT TENS OF MILLIONS. Let me remind you, that Dostoyevski was a terrorist, who was caught, convicted by court, and sent to Gulag, where he spent 7 years, was re-educated, realized the mistakes of his youth, and went on to become one of the greatest writers in Russias history.

    74. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong. The worst era of freedom in USA is NOW. You cant ever publicly protest anymore. And In the 80s in Soviet Union you could pretty much do god damn anything you wanted. Literally it was the wild wild west. The kind of freedom your grandparents haven't seen in this country. Oh did you know there is no such country USA? USA fell in 1913. You live in a puppet state, you have no rights, your vote has 0 weight. Enjoy your "freedom".

    75. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me ask you something, If you knew that the country with millions of people you were responsible for was getting closer and closer to an inevitable , and a horrible war, and then your intelligence told you, In the Baltic States, there is an armed revolt sponsored from over seas is brewing. Now, Look on the Map, where was Hitler? Where is Estonia? What would you do? I would tell you what I would do, I would take a hot knife, cut out the cancer of insurrection in the back of my army, and then cauterize the wound. You should ask those mind warped NATO-Estonians, if they would even exist if it was not for Stalin. Hitler would have taken a hot sword and ripped their hearts, their heads and made their children eat them, and then decapitate their children. That is the alternative you support. Idiot.

    76. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. Estonia was a Pearl of Soviet Union. It was the Enlightened West. I lived in Uzbekistan, to us Estonia was a magic land we ALL wanted to visit. Now what is Estonia? What it Latvia? What is Lithuania? Their population is halfed, their industries Ruined. They are no longer Pearls of Asia, They are Boonies of Europe... it is sad how we were all fooled.

    77. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Settle down, you Jewish hating, 20 million killed person supporter you! All is now well in Russia as the Putinistas are doing it to the other Russians as well. Previously they did this mostly to foreigners and their businesses in Russia. The other Russians voted for Putin. It the karma, bitches.

    78. Re:Surprised? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Hitler would have taken a hot sword and ripped their hearts, their heads and made their children eat them, and then decapitate their children. That is the alternative you support. Idiot.

      And they would have done it with the oil Russia sold them under Molotov-Ribbentropp. The Russians didn't give two shits about Nazi mass murder until the chickens came home to roost. So spare me the savior complex.

    79. Re:Surprised? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      laissez-faire is an unworkable economic system because it assumes monopolistic behaviour does not exist and people are rational

      Even Adam Smith knew better than that. Cue in the Ayn Randites.

    80. Re:Surprised? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Dostoyevski was a terrorist, who was caught, convicted by court, and sent to Gulag, where he spent 7 years, was re-educated, realized the mistakes of his youth, and went on to become one of the greatest writers in Russias history.

      You forgot to mention this happened when the Tsars were in power. People forget the Soviet Communist Party did not invent the Gulag system.

    81. Re:Surprised? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Supposedly the new name is the Eurasian Federation.

    82. Re:Surprised? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      No. It is State Capitalism which is a system proposed in Das Capital. 'Socialism' in that sense refers to a variety of supposed intermediate systems between capitalism and 'Communism'.

    83. Re:Surprised? by AdamColley · · Score: 1

      Only on Babylon 5

    84. Re:Surprised? by AdamColley · · Score: 1

      We call them Randroids these days.

    85. Re:Surprised? by AdamColley · · Score: 1

      Are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia? I forget...

    86. Re:Surprised? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      To be more specific, they're using a blend of ultra-patriotism and religious traditionalism (not one specific religion, but whatever's traditional for various ethnic groups within Russia - i.e. Eastern Orthodoxy for Russians, Islam for Tatars etc) as the new state ideology.

    87. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      And you still provide no facts, because facts require "research", which requires "work," whereas spewing Libertarian gobbledygook is pure intellectual masturbation.

      As for hard numbers, the average slave in the South was sold once during his or her lifetime. If the average German had been shipped out to Dachau once there would have been nobody left to fight the Red Army. The Soviets had a much larger system, but it didn't include nearly as much sexual violence as actual slavery did. If it had the leaders of the USSR would have had a lot more kids.

      As trolls go you just suck. You're absolutely terrible. At this point in the conversation I usually accuse my inept opponent of secretly being on my side, because nobody with an IQ above room temperature could have fucked up their position so badly accidentally; but I'm pretty sure your IQ isn't above room temperature.

      Don't worry, you'll get better as you grow into your teens.

    88. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I provide as many numbers as you, my friend. The difference between us is that if you go after numbers you will quickly find out that in excess of 30 million people died from starvation and executions in the USSR, and more than a hundred million in China, against very few slaves in US. and that is because of the fact that when you have an endless supply of slaves and don't have even to pay for them eliminating them at a whim bears you no costs.

      I am not a troll, although I am quite sure that if you believe, in your madness, that troll is the standard definition of anyone who disagrees with you. Were i a troll, though, I would say that I would be a very successful one considering you are still arguing with the troll...

    89. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but there was no monopoly in History that was able to sustain itself without the help of a government. Ideal laissez-faire is unachieavable because governments are needed for many motives, but you can come very close to it and it has NOTHING to do with fascism. Fascism is based on autoritarism and cronyism with is the complete opposite to laissez-faire capitalism.

    90. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      I provide as many numbers as you, my friend. The difference between us is that if you go after numbers you will quickly find out that in excess of 30 million people died from starvation and executions in the USSR, and more than a hundred million in China, against very few slaves in US. and that is because of the fact that when you have an endless supply of slaves and don't have even to pay for them eliminating them at a whim bears you no costs.

      Your first number is wrong. 30 million is the Soviet death toll in WW2. Even the most ardent anti-Soviets give a death toll of 20 million for that system, over seven decades that's a couple hundred thousand a year. Even with your higher estimate we're only talking 500k a year.

      Your second number is wrong. "More then a hundred million" is about 50% greater then any estimate you see when you do actual research.

      Your third number shows you still haven't read anything about slavery. Very few slaves (something like 5%) made it to 65, at a time when most people who made it past infancy made it to 65. Which indicates that every enslaved death was a premature death, which can be blamed on the system. By 1865 we had roughly 5 million slaves, so our murder rate in the US alone was probably in the 100k range. Considering the entire Western hemisphere practiced slavery to varying degrees New World African slavery probably killed more people per year then the Soviet system.

      I am not a troll, although I am quite sure that if you believe, in your madness, that troll is the standard definition of anyone who disagrees with you. Were i a troll, though, I would say that I would be a very successful one considering you are still arguing with the troll...

      You're assuming I am not enjoying calling you stupid, you hare-brained son of a twit.

    91. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Even by your more modest estimation the mass murders due to communist regimens are in excess of 70 million which is orders of magnitude greater than anything done to black slaves, but by all means, keep trying to justify your sick ideology. It amuses me.

    92. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Oh and life expectancy in China and USSR always was considerably lower than life expectancy in US especially in the past. That means, by your own warped attempt of logic, that China and the USSR are responsible for billions of premature deaths, that is a much better figure to compare with your 100 K a year of slaves, than the 70 million of direct assassinations.;)

    93. Re:Surprised? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      That's propaganda. They have the form of Communism but not the function.

      Ah, well then it's much like the US Government propaganda. We have a form of a Constitution, but none of the Rights.

      Constitution defines what you are made of, what the government can do, their limits, which is not at all the same as defining your rights. The US Government does have a Constitution, but I'm not sure exactly WHICH rights you think that that automatically should come with?

      Think about various people's rights in this country before the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th amendments. http://www.ushistory.org/docum...

      It's a constant evolution, and hard work. It always will be, and it always has been. The people who wrote the United states Constitution knew that, and since you said "we", YOU should know that.

      Ah yes, the old AD&D days...Constitution. Yes, I recall. It has about as much weight these days as our actual Constitution. Been reduced to nothing more than a museum attraction really. Perhaps you'll visit it someday, unless there's been a mistake at TSA and you've been flagged as a terrorist and put on a no-fly list unbeknownst to you whatsoever. And while done completely by accident it is now basically impossible to reverse. Welcome to your new-and-improved rights. Please enjoy your semi-permanent stay.

      But please, tell me again how our rights should wait around to be defined and guaranteed. Our founding fathers didn't feel it necessary, hence the purpose of referring to certain rights as inalienable in definition to ensure there was no ambiguity.

      I'm not sure what evolution you are referring to, or what country you've been living in for last decade, but We the People have seen nothing but a constant erosion of our rights. If you fail to believe that, then try and grasp any semblance of privacy in your life anymore. Everything you do in life is tracked, monitored, and recorded. Ironically for most, there were no rights to really give up. Apathy stole them long ago.

      But that's OK. Please keep convincing yourself that we need to work on this while spinning yarns about how the level of corruption isn't that bad...

      Please remember to smile and wave when the drones fly over. They like to see you happy and complacent.

    94. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Actually Wikipedia has life expectancy in the USSR for two years. In 1926 it was 9 years lower then the US, but by the 50s it was a couple years higher. But you wouldn;t have bothered to find that out because that would be work. Which kinda indicates that if you're trying to blame any system for lack of life expectancy in Soviet times it should be the Czarist system, which was not totalitarian.

      What ideology, precisely, do you think you're opposing? I haven't said I like either totalitarian system. I just said that, from my point of view, the systems are the opposite. I die within 20 minutes under Fascism, I get a raise under Communism. I never said I actually supported either system. Moreover I said actual slavery is worse then both. Given that under actual slavery there's a guy whose entire job is to work you to death before you reach retirement age (at which point you cost money but bring in no revenue), and you don't have any rights at all the only reason to claim slavery was equivalent to any totalitarian system is that you're too lazy to think.

      And I think it's quite clear that you're too lazy to think.

    95. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Now you are just blatantly lying instead of just being intellectually dishonest (as in comparing murder with diminished life expectancy)

      Life expectancy was always lower than in US, from the revolution to 1990.

      USSR Life expectancy at birth - 1990:

      65 years male, 74 years female

      US Life expectancy at birth - 1990

      71.8 years male, 78.8 years female

    96. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Just to enlighten you:

      https://www.google.com.br/publ...

      And keep in mind that the data on USSR and China is based on official data from closed authoritarian countries that had every motive to manipulate data as much as they could get away with.

    97. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      "Blatantly lying?" You literally make up all your evidence, and then call me a lier for linking to actual data? That's pretty damn stupid.

      Especially since your data doesn't contradict mine. I said nothing about 1990. I said "late 1950s." Which I specifically cherry-picked because the research for that period takes you to a government table, which includes no pretty pictures, which means you were unlikely to find it on your own. OTOH you finally googled something, which technically doesn't count because it starts in the 60s, but still it's nice to know you can post something you didn't make up. BTW there's at least one other problem with this data point. But to find it you'll actually have to find my source. It's not hard to find, but you will have to read some text.

      Note that most of your the deaths in the numbers you made up out of your ass actually don't count according to your new standard. If you're gonna count an instance where some guy screwed up agricultural policy (and that is precisely what you are doing when you count Chinese famines); you must necessarily count deaths caused by slave-masters working slaves to death before retirement age. There is a lot more guilt in purposefully working someone to death because you want him to die before he gets expensive, then there is in screwing up governmental policy. The former is murder in the eyes of the law, the latter isn't even illegal in the US because under sovereign immunity the government is allowed to fuck up as long as it can prove it really, really, really didn't intend to fuck up.

      You might be able to count the Holodomor in your new death-tolls, but most of your death toll evaporated.

    98. Re:Surprised? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You are the one cherry picking, my friend. I've successfully shown you that life expectancy was greater in US at least from the 60s to the end of USSR and considering the famines oin the 20s and 30s, even if you were right (and you are not) that in the 50s life expectancy for some miracle became higher in USSR it would be a small anomaly in a trend that implies the exact opposite.

      USSR and China famines were direct killings that killed millions of children and young people, you can`t possibly compare them with the shorted lifespans of hard working slaves who were well fed, but if you do you will have to include the shortened lifespans of ALL people in China and USSR and you will see that communist has killed a lot more people than anything else added together, including the Holocaust, and all the slavery in mankind including all the ancient empires.

      But as all socialists you are an intellectual dishonest parasite, eager to live a life of luxury at the excuse of other people's misery, who when faced with hard truth, desperately tries to justify his own unjustifiable urges with any absurdity he can grab.

    99. Re:Surprised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      "You are the one cherry-picking," which I just said. It's interesting to note you still haven't tracked down my source. You really do suck at this research thing, don't you? Unless it's something you vaguely recall a libertarian spewing at you you just don't know it. Which means you really don't know jack about American slavery. Since the America of the slave-era is the one Libertarians think of as the "freest country ever," they aren't terribly likely to engage in long conversations about how South Carolina raped most of it's women until Abe Lincoln broke the Constitution and stopped that shit.

      As for the slave diet, it can't be a good diet if the vast majority of the people on it are dead before retirement age. It has to be precisely calculated to be just enough to prevent starvation in a healthy person, but no more. It's designed to kill the unhealthy/old so that Master can pretend he's not an evil murderer. Which may not seem direct to you, but hey. You're a Libertarian, you're supposed to be obsessed with arguing fine ethical points and then decreeing that anyone who disagrees with you on any of those points is anti-freedom, which you then conflate with multiple historical movements that spent most of their time trying to kill each-other.

      Did I ever say I was Socialist by ANY definition of the term? It's a pretty meaningless term because it has been adopted by so many different movements, and a large proportion of the population insists on using it to refer to anyone who disagrees with them on the tiniest little matter, so almost everyone is socialist by some definition or other; but I haven't given you anything but that I'm left-wing economically on this thread. Did I ever say I would be eager to get into the new Communist government? Hell no. I said I don't make much (and I don't -- $14k last year, probably $25k this year), and that CPUSA would treat me as either a) a fellow-traveler who can be trusted with important government work, or b) a potential opponent who should be shot like Trotsky.
      Which means my choices are being shot, or an entry-level gig replacing one of the thousands of Federal Bureaucrats they have just actually shot.

  3. Don't Mess with April Fools by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> He appeared to announce his resignation from the company on April 1st, but later claimed that it was an April Fools' joke, and that he would remain onboard. In a statement issued Monday, however, VK said that Durov submitted a resignation letter on March 21st and never withdrew it within the mandatory one-month window. Because of that, Durov said, he will be "automatically relieved" of his position.

    Politically, it's bad, but I do enjoy seeing someone's stupid April Fools stunt blow up in their face.

    1. Re:Don't Mess with April Fools by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      That's what you take away from the article *blink*

    2. Re:Don't Mess with April Fools by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Hah, high time for him to apply to have his name changed from "Durov" to "Durakov". ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Don't Mess with April Fools by js3 · · Score: 1

      >> He appeared to announce his resignation from the company on April 1st, but later claimed that it was an April Fools' joke, and that he would remain onboard. In a statement issued Monday, however, VK said that Durov submitted a resignation letter on March 21st and never withdrew it within the mandatory one-month window. Because of that, Durov said, he will be "automatically relieved" of his position.

      Politically, it's bad, but I do enjoy seeing someone's stupid April Fools stunt blow up in their face.

      Wow he's a total idiot. April fools joke means saying it not doing it.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
  4. Collectivism wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, we all know that collectivism is merely a smokescreen for greed. If it was legit, then the rulers would be living exactly like the peasants they controlled, rather than the ultra-rich emporers they are.

  5. Putin town hall by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Next time Putin is taking questions on Russian TV this guy should submit one about "blah, blah, blah" so Putin can respond with his own "blah, blah, blah...next question?". Seems to work for other people.

  6. How does that sit with you, Snowden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like quiet the pickle you found yourself in.

    1. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Why? In the USA Facebook and Google+ are both run by people who could be described as "oligarchs" with strong ties to the White House.

      By the way, if you believe this story is true then you should also believe that Putin's answer to Snowden was correct, given that it says:

      Earlier this month, Durov claimed that Russia's intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB), had pressured him to hand over personal data on VK users involved in anti-government protests in Ukraine. Durov said he refused to do so, though he's gradually ceded control of the company in recent months and has long butted heads with government authorities. Experts have speculated that the Kremlin is looking to tighten its grip over VK and other social networks in the same way it controls print and TV media. Many Russians used VK to organize widespread anti-Putin demonstrations in 2011 and 2012, when thousands took to the streets to protest allegedly rigged elections

      i.e. they are/were not able to simply access that data in the same way the USA and UK were slurping internal Google/Facebook db replication traffic right off the wire. In which case Putin's assertion that the FSB doesn't monitor "millions of users" might be correct, though of course the rationale given is highly suspect.

    2. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Except Russians are stuck with the same band of crooks.

      OTOH, power in the West is rotated between two different bands of crooks (or at least two factions of the same band of crooks).

      Ostensibly, the benefit of 'democracy', is that when the corrupts/incompetents in charge get on the nose too much, they can be safely and quickly gotten rid of. Russians and Chinese don't have that luxury. With no pressure-release-value, tensions within the system will just build up until something explodes, like 1789.

    3. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OTOH, power in the West is rotated between two different bands of crooks (or at least two factions of the same band of crooks).

      I think if the Snowden affair has taught us anything, it's that real power in the west is not held by politicians but rather the executive branch (US) and civil service (UK). The bureaucrats appear to be able to do whatever they like, then repeatedly lie about it (USA) or simply refuse to turn up at all (UK) and politicians let them get away with it. What's more, the bureaucracy is now routinely blacklisting and even assassinating people based on no kind of formal process whatsoever, with no democratic oversight, and the people doing it are career government employees who are certainly not elected and in many cases their identities are themselves secret.

      For background, in my former job I worked on one of the systems at Google that was compromised by GCHQ (they wrote wire sniffers to decode the login traffic). The root cause of this failure was the incorrect idea that western governments are "good" and the nasty Chinese/Russians/Iranians are "bad" thus internal encryption was only worth the cost when traffic transited wires controlled by "bad guys". But it turned out that they're all bad and the degree of badness appears limited only by their budget, so now Google all wire traffic all the time.

      So please get out of this idea that the west is better than Russia. Democracy in the anglosphere has become so weak that lots of people simply refuse to vote at all, or are (at best) single issue voters for things like immigration. Anything national security related is uncontrollable by voting at this point.

    4. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Russia has a multi-party system, the "trouble" is that Putin is relatively popular and is currently rocking an approval rating in the mid-70s, and the main opposition party is the Communist Party of Russia (yes, _that_ communist party of Russia). United Russia _can_ be voted out in Russia, that release valve exists, but again, Putin is well liked and even if he was not, UR is the de-facto "lesser evil", given that the main alternative is Communism.

      This is about normal in democratic countries, take Canada, 4 major federal parties (plus the fringe Greens, Communists, Marxist Leninists, and pot parties), but in practice, it's just switching between Conservatives and Liberals.

    5. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      So if the West has problems of its own, it automatically follows that the West is just as bad as Russia? Sorry, me no buy this. If I cross the road with the red light when in a hurry and sometimes bike home after two beers in a pub, it makes me just as bad as a child molester or an axe murderer?

    6. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      It looks like a multi-party system on paper, but the Kremlin has slowly and steadily gained control over all the media (with some exceptions), most notably the television, and as that is what most Russian citizens use for getting their daily dose of information, it’s a good and effective way of keeping one party in the limelight and belittling everybody else. The opposition gets no media time, but they do get politically motivated arrests and jail time on trumped up or made up charges etc. NGOs funded from abroad are labelled as foreign agents, and while this may not sound like a big deal, it effectively closes down all the election monitoring and human rights groups etc. The communists’ resilience is astounding, but it’s also understandable, because nostalgia is king (and also plays a big part in the current events in Crimea). Besides, they serve their purpose: the message from above is that it’s either us or the commies, and you remember how that ended. It’s the Kremlin’s modus operandi – they keep some nutcases on the payroll or at least let them speak in public so that the rulers can look sane in comparison. (See Zhirinovski and Kiselyov et al.) And they can use them to probe the public opinion.

      This, however, is not to say that the entire opposition is necessarily a force for good. While Putin’s derzhava rhetorics worry me, I myself am equally wary of some opposition figures’ nationalistic rhetorics, because even though they tout democratic values, they are also big on Russian nationalism. In some respects, Putin’s derzhava (mighty state) take is more predictable and safer than the nationalist course that would end up much the same way, only worse for the ethnic minorities.

    7. Re:How does that sit with you, Snowden? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      "Routinely assassinating?" That happened to one guy. Literally. The US has assassinated one US Citizen. And there was a lengthy, formal process to decide whether to nail him. It may not have been as lengthy as you'd like, or involve as many branches as you'd like (AFAIK only Obama's people were consulted), but it did actually happen.

      Here's your core problem:
      Nobody outside of the 1% or so of any Anglosphere country that reads Slashdot cares MORE about information security issues then they care about the other issues.

      Please don't respond with anything including the word "Sheeple." Just because you think that everyone who prefers a government that provides universal healthcare (and spies on them) is better then a government that does neither that does not prove they've been brain-washed by the man.

  7. only in russia. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here in america we certainly dont have anything this ridiculous. Our social networks take careful steps to ensure profits are privatized and personal information is harvested and transmitted to the government quietly and quickly without so much as raising the issue for reasonable discussion. Our media outlets would never consistently report on the legality or morality of such normal operations as theyre both patriotic and in the interest of the people of the united states. Our elected leaders would never pressure private companies to shut down websites and deny financial remuneration for wholesome and informative whistleblower agencies such as wikileaks. For the Russian government to even consider a takeover of a private corporation is bombastic. We've never once taken over an auto industry or a bank, for example. And as for conventional media in america, we have never delivered talking points and restricted journalists in an attempt to control the dissemenation of information.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:only in russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having faults of our own does not mean that Russia and China are not far worse.

    2. Re:only in russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, you guys in the US/UK/Aus don't have *oligarchs* like Russia does! No! That's not what Murdoch, Gates, Bush etc. are! They're just very hardworking wealthy people, with absolutely zero control over anything except their business, and they never, EVER, try to do anything bad...they definitely never try to control society! No way!

      Also, the US/UK governemnts are not corrupt in any way shape or form, nosiree!

      English speakers never do these things, they are the pinnacle of saintlyness. Unlike those....foreign people.

  8. Re: Surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They both are communist in practice; It's just that the practical definition of communism clashes with the lies of communist propaganda, and that socialists/communists like you are always arguing that other socialists/communists aren't true socialists/communists.

  9. So, does anyone have any ideas ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    So, does anyone have any ideas where Edward Snowden might be working in Russia these days?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:So, does anyone have any ideas ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gulag

  10. Facebook by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Isn't Facebook basically under defacto control of the NSA anyway.

    1. Re:Facebook by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      The parody video might be my favorite thing that The Onion has ever made: http://www.theonion.com/video/...

    2. Re:Facebook by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Haha, a classic. Seriously, every day Facebook is in operation must be like Christmas to the spooks, it's the next best thing to direct access to people's thoughts. Even if you don't have an account people will talk about what you do, take pics of you and tag your face for the facial recognition engine!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Re: Surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's also the matter of tards like you failing to make the distinction between communism, Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Juche, Maoism, socialism, social-democracy and democratic-socialism.

    Calling it all Communism is really just saying that you don't actually understand what you're bantering about.

  12. Despoiler Crying Foul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ought to count himself lucky he's still breathing, certainly wouldn't have shown his victims the same sort of compassion.

  13. Re: Surprised. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Well, at least you have the old cold warriors modding up your little troll post there. But... you're still wrong. Everybody has a price. The process of agreement is capitalism, even in the most dictatorial, communist, fascist regime you can find. There is no other way to exchange goods and services. Even with a gun, which you have to pay someone to make for you, you still have to pay someone, or an army to pull the trigger. That is capitalism.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  14. Re: Surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you admit that communism will never, ever truly be possible because there will never be the removal of a process of agreement in any society... including the dictatorial, communist and fascist ones. There is always a trade-off of something for something else.

    That's why capitalism works Charlie Brown, it conforms to human nature and, more importantly, human liberty.

  15. Re: Surprised. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Then you admit that communism will never, ever truly be possible...

    That's why capitalism works...

    And you never heard me state otherwise in either case. I simply said that all systems are capitalist, merely an observation, not an opinion.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. Vulture Communisim: the Russian System by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    That's just how things work in Russia. There's not really any Rule of Law there. So once a company gets lucrative, the government swoops in and takes it over. Any unfortunate owner who tries to stand in the way finds himself in jail, or worse.

    What I don't understand is why anyone would invest a single dime of their own money in a business operating in a country where the instant an investment starts paying off, someone else will come reap all your rewards. It just makes no sense whatsoever to try to do business there.

    1. Re:Vulture Communisim: the Russian System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand is why anyone would invest a single dime of their own money in a business operating in a country where the instant an investment starts paying off, someone else will come reap all your rewards. It just makes no sense whatsoever to try to do business there.

      Quite simple if you think about it.
      They want to become the ones who take rewards from others, or they think they can change it.

    2. Re:Vulture Communisim: the Russian System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to understand: Greed. Tends to make people blind to risks.

    3. Re:Vulture Communisim: the Russian System by ckedge · · Score: 1

      > What I don't understand is why anyone would invest a single dime of their own money in a business operating in a country where the instant an investment starts paying off, someone else will come reap all your rewards.

      They don't. Not any more, not to the same extent. Russia actually took a significant economic hit when the investment money slowly evaporated over the past 10 years, but it's hidden by the rise in the price of oil and gas (at least gas in Europe, still, so far..).

  17. Background (for those who didn't read TFA) by zlogic · · Score: 1

    This Pavel Durov guy sent a resignation letter on April 1 saying that he resigned. Then a follow-up letter on April 3 stating that this was an April Fools joke and he'd like to recall the resignation letter.
    Now, the VK social is undergoing hostile takeover and there's lots of going on that we don't know about.
    What most don't seem to understand is:
    You don't make such kind of jokes on April 1st without expecting consequences.
    Imagine if
    * Your boss joked "you're fired, pack your shit" and gave you a pink slip on April 1st
    * A senior developer joked "I'm tired of all this bullshit and all you dumbass bozos building pointless crap" and gave his resignation on April 1st
    * The CEO joked "I'm tired of all this bullshit and all the f-ing politics I have to deal with" and gave his resignation on April 1st
    and made a follow-up two days later saying that was a joke and the statement should be recalled.

    This still is a sad day in the history of Russian Internet. It seems that blocking of stuff is getting more and more aggressive (Navalny's blog was banned simply because he's under house arrest and is not supposed to use the internet). Some ISPs even roll out DPI which is sadly a better alternative to DNS-based blocking because of much less false-positives.

  18. Re: Surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fox news says youre a pinko commie!

  19. Just business... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you get money for your project from the investor, be ready to lose your project.
    That's the case, which has nothing to do with politics - just business.

  20. Brain obstinately despondent, western liberasts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://rt.com/news/durov-resigns-vkontakte-social-904/
    A war is looming, thankfully.

  21. Re: Surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism, it's the other way around." - J. K. Galbraith (not verbatim)

  22. The other way around by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    In Russia, the government controls corporations. In USA, corporations control the government.

  23. Re: Surprised. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Even when GOSPLAN decides the prices for you?

  24. stop college boy's nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people here could use take a walk around impoverished countries and see what capitalism means for most of human kind.

  25. Re: Surprised. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Yes

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  26. This comes shortly after by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    The Russian state demanded that VK release info on (Ukrainian) users who used VK to organize Euromaidan protests. Durov told them to go fuck themselves.

    Now not only he's fired, but he left Russia, and he went on record saying that he has no intent of returning. Can't blame him. I had to go there on a two-week business trip, and I always had that nagging thought of shit hitting the fan while I'm on the wrong side of the border (since I'm still a Russian citizen, it would probably result in me ending up as a conscript somewhere in a trench in Ukraine).