Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Pre-order now Shop Men's Shop Women's
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

60% of Russians want....

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-21 of 21 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Dec 2013 21:27:00 GMT
About 60 percent of Russians believe there were more positive than negative aspects to life in the former Soviet Union, an opinion poll suggests.

Of the 1,000 people whom Russia's Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) interviewed by telephone in a survey last month, 14 percent said the word communism had percent "very pleasant," "positive" or "wonderful" connotations for them and 12 percent said they were nostalgic about the Soviet era.

Communism was just a thing of the past for 11 percent, but the same proportion believed communism meant good and stable life.

To 7 percent, the word communism gave a sense of "disgust" or "sad associations" or meant "something negative" generally.

For 5 percent, it stood for dreams of a "radiant future" that had never come true ("it's a great pity that we never came to see it").

Asked by pollsters to explain the meaning of the word communism, 23 percent said that for them it meant a just society where everyone is equal and all property is common.

For 9 percent, the word primarily stood for a specific economic and social system, while for 8 percent it represented a life better than today's ("we were better off, people were taken better care of," and "people were more plain and life was more plan as well").

Six percent said communism represented good and stable life for them, and praised the official Soviet era principle "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

Five percent dismissed communism as a utopia or fairytale.

Respondents were also asked to explain what they might see as positive and negative aspects of the Soviet system.

In response, 33 percent credited it with good social security guarantees, stability and good care of people, 14 percent said it had been a system of justice and social equality, 9 percent said the Soviet Union was a land of rule of law and discipline, 7 percent praised the country's guaranteed employment, and another 7 percent claimed that people were more willing to help each other then than they are today.

On the other hand, 9 percent criticized Soviet-era restrictions on rights and liberties, 7 percent accused the Soviet system of suppressing personal individuality, another 7 percent said shortages of basic consumer goods were that system's main defect, 6 percent slammed abuse of authority in that period and 5% condemned the repressive rule in the Soviet Union.

By and large, 59 percent of respondents believed there were more positive than negative aspects to communism. In that category, 69 percent were people aged 60 or more and 47 percent people aged between 18 and 30.

Moreover, 43 percent would have welcomed Russia's re-adopting the communist ideology, 38 percent were not happy with the idea, and 19 percent were undecided on this point.

Posted on 9 Dec 2013 22:19:06 GMT

Reads like all is well, they will vote for the Communist Party at the next election.

Posted on 9 Dec 2013 23:51:04 GMT
Ford Prefect says:
Interesting outcome given that in the USSR virtually nobody outside the Party apparatus had a private telephone. Mind you, if they had, and a telephone poll was conducted, 100% or more would've categorised living in the USSR as blissful.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 06:44:10 GMT
Withnail says:
Simon, would you like to live in the 1970s? Remember the summer of 1976, every day was gorgeous and warm, we had great TV like Robinson Crusoe and the Flashing Blade and "It's Friday, it's 5 to 5 and it's Crackerjack!!!"?

Also remember we didn't have the internet, or microwave ovens, we didn't have duvets, and we wore itchy woollen balaclavas?

It's called nostalgia. They don't want to live in the USSR, but they miss the old certainties, and nobody likes to see a few people get very rich at the expense of the vast majority. But it is nostalgia, it's not real.

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 08:26:02 GMT
Anita says:
A. Little - that is not true, many people had telephones (obviously not all and you surely couldn't call anywhere abroad), but quite a lot of people did, especially in the cities. Now, a telephone poll - that would be utterly unimaginable. But - surely "100% or more would've categorised living in the USSR as blissful". Because for saying otherwise you'd have been promptly imprisoned by KGB. Nobody were saying the truth, unless to the extremely trusted ones.

Withnail - that is about spot-on, I guess...

Memory is a strange thing. It's always worse *now*. It's always" ahh, when we were young... :)

(Still, it's a lot *better* now if you ask me. Hard even to compare)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 09:38:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2013 13:02:22 GMT
Good interesting comment TNF/GOMSY, but you seem to have misunderstood the deeper meaning of the poll results you quote?

Firstly, you should remember that 'Liberal/Socialist' style policies of widespread female labour, mass immigration/integration etc.... were introduced into the Soviet Union a generation or more before this occurred in Western Europe/UK.

Little wonder then, that those polled amid the crime ridden, poverty stricken, socially/racially balkanised, 'failed state' Russia is today look back upon the era prior to Communism's bankruptcy/collapse into semi-anarchy with nostalgia?

That does NOT mean they're all dreaming of a return to the Marxist/Socialist policies of the 'Workers Paradise' however. The typical Russian citizen is bitterly aware that the miserable conditions they endure today are the direct result OF those idealistic but recklessly irresponsible Marxist/Socialist policies.

With the benefit of hindsight's 20/20 vision, the majority of those I've spoken to (one of my neighbours is a farmer who employers a dozen or so young Russian lads as cheap labour) deeply regret that the Revolution ever occurred. Recently two even went so far as to say they wish Germany had defeated the Stalinist regime in 1941, thus locking Russia into a united Europe three generations ago; which would by now have been demographically/economically capable of resisting the growing power of a resurgent China.

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 09:49:05 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 10 Dec 2013 10:36:07 GMT]

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 11:37:56 GMT
easytiger says:
Yeh and Chelsea would have to keep a manager for more than one season.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 11:51:18 GMT
Spin says:
CW; The "Cold war" may have ended, but in Russia there is a "Cold revolution", indeed a "Cold civil war" that has been unresolved since Lenin's coup. Russia is still in political turmoil as its totalitarian government, odd laws and threats to European and Oriental nations clearly show...

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 13:15:21 GMT
Simple reason really: no viable party has emerged to challenge Putin's. They draw up a balance sheet and decide they were better off under the communists. There's a resurgence of fascism in Russia too, traditionally the Communists have been good at squaring up to them.

I remember the country under Brezhnev - a lot of fear around, often of thought crime. In the new Russia they despair for their futures. Looks like they have a devil or deep blue sea choice.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 13:25:30 GMT
Spin says:
Putin has a very "Coloured", or "stained", politically history; how he has remained in power for so long is a question only his acolytes can answer...Russia never grasped the concept of democracy; even in the Soviet era, the era of "equality", Russians were down-trodden. There is an inherent need in Russian societal consciousness to be "led"...

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 16:01:17 GMT
Quite right Spin.

You should remember however that since times immemorial, Russia's warriors have been Europe's 'Shield in the East'; failing only twice in two millennia. The first failing enabled Attila's Hun's to destroy the Roman Empire in the West; the second permitted the Mongol invasions which (without the timely death of Genghis Khan) might easily have reduced Medieval Europe to a vassal state of Asia.

Due to the combined effects of contraception/abortion and female employment however, Russian has suffered a population collapse worse than that seen in the West, with the traditionally Slavic Russians now accounting for little more than 25% of this:-

Russia's Slavic population to account for only 25 percent by 2020 ... Russia Politics
19.09.2013. Russia's Slavic population to account for only 25 percent by 2020?. 51148.jpeg. Russia is facing a threat of a takeover by Muslims that it will not be ...

Thus, when you say:- "Russia is still in political turmoil as its totalitarian government, odd laws and threats to European and Oriental nations clearly show... " you should realise that, as a vast mineral rich and sparsely populated nation; possessing extensive land borders with Europe, China, India and the Islamic Nations, while being outnumbered approx. 14 to 1 by China alone; Russia today is more strategically/economically and socially vulnerable than ever before in her existence.

These are just a few of the reasons President Vladimir Putin is no longer prepared to continue leading his people down the geopolitical path to potential catastrophe followed by his predecessors for so long.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 16:14:13 GMT
Spin says:
CW; Russia, past and present, is the last example I would offer as an alternative to the evil of American and European Capitalism...

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 16:15:58 GMT
The fall in population is the only good thing Russia has going for it. It is now a criminal state effectively run for and by the mafia. At some point the people will say enough.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 16:49:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Dec 2013 17:13:02 GMT
I don't think I did offer Russia 'as an alternative to the evil of American and European Capitalism' ?

What I tried to explain was the appalling strategic vulnerability of modern Russia, which is motivating Putin's refusal to blindly follow suicidal policies any longer. Only when the traditionally British population is similarly reduced to an aging minority in these islands (demographic trends indicate this will be about 2030), will you or your children/grandchildren fully understand how Russia's Slavic citizenry feel now.

The Mail On Line article posted below graphically illustrates this process, and how (whilst restricted to Russia today) it must inevitably impact on all Europe tomorrow:-

Will Britain one day be Muslim? by RUTH DUDLEY EDWARDS. 05 May 2007

Militants: Threats to end our freedoms blithely ignored

This week has been another terrible one for those of us who want a society in which all races, religions and cultures mix to their mutual advantage and enrichment.

On Tuesday, five men were sentenced to life in prison for plotting to use a huge fertiliser bomb in what would have been the UK's largest mass murder.

Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Salahuddin Amin, Anthony Garcia and Jawad Akbar - first and second generation immigrants - responded to the tolerance of the British people by trying to kill as many of them as possible.

Is it absurd to hope that the exposure of their evil after a 13-month trial which cost an estimated 50 million has finally provided the wake-up call that this slumbering country so badly needs?

Or will we continue to allow the politically-correct lunatics to stay in charge of what is becoming an asylum?

I'm one of those old-fashioned immigrants to this country who feels passionately grateful, is proudly British (as well as Irish - having been born in Dublin), and believes that immigrants have more duties than rights.

And, further, that one of those is to adjust to British society rather than expecting it to adjust to them.

However, one aspect of contemporary British society which I refuse to adjust to is its weakness in the face of the enemy within.

In my many conversations with like-minded people about the threat that radical Islam poses to the British way of lifen - and, indeed, to European civilisation - we frequently end by despairingly agreeing that the West seems intent on committing political and cultural suicide.

When we look starkly at the demographic statistics, the wimpishness of our Establishment in the face of the threat, the perversions perpetrated by political correctness and our own passivity, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that within a couple of generations, Islam will be in control in Europe.

And before anyone says that there would be nothing wrong if this happened, since the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant people who would not dream of interfering with our way of life, it's necessary to point out that in Muslim countries, it's usually the radicals and extremist mullahs - who regard tolerance as a vice - who make the running.

This occurs too in microcosm in Muslim ghettoes around Europe: we saw the frightening fundamentalist fringe of Islam marching, threatening and perpetrating violence over the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed in Denmark while the majority of Muslims - who, yes, of course, are tolerant and decent - kept their mouths shut and stayed at home.

Yes, Islam may be a great religion. But in its fundamentalist version, some of its values are antipathetic to ours, and if they triumph in Europe, they will threaten our values such as freedom of thought and speech and the spirit of intellectual inquiry that made European civilisation great and prosperous.

The danger of ending up like those poor, despotic and medieval Islamic states in which millions live miserably is a prospect that Christians, Hindus, moderate Muslims and non-believers should be uniting to prevent. But the truth is that we are doing little to stop it.

Consider first at a few chilling statistics. Europeans are failing to reproduce. Just to keep the population steady, you need 2.1 live births per woman.

However, in 2005, the European average was 1.38. In Ireland it was 1.9, France 1.89, Germany 1.35 and Italy 1.23. Britain scored in the middle of this range with 1.6, but that was because - like France - we have a large Muslim population with a high birth rate. Indeed, Muslims are outbreeding non-Muslims throughout Europe.

"Just look at the development within Europe," said a triumphant Norwegian imam a few months ago, "where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."

The big question this poses is: why are we not reproducing? There are many reasons, but probably the most important are the decline of religion and the liberation of women.

In Ireland, when the Roman Catholic Church effectively ran society, sex was for procreation, contraceptives were banned, the normal size for a family was around five or six children, but 12 or 13 were not uncommon.

As the country embraced secularism in the 1980s, birth rates plummeted, exacerbated by the new-found confidence of women that made them choose careers rather than domesticity.

Whereas in the 1970s, I was regarded in both the UK and Ireland as odd for being married but voluntarily childless, these days, childlessness is a common choice.

It is a world where one child families abound and to have more than two children is to be regarded as eccentric and probably environmentally irresponsible.

Moreover, the erosion of family life and the long-hours culture place a very heavy burden on those prepared to rear the next generation.

Despite these social forces, even in the UK, devout Muslims and orthodox Jews obey instructions to have large families.

Confronted with this demographic-revolution and official statistics which showed there were too few young people to support an ageing population, European governments decided to embrace immigration as an inherent good without giving any thought to the consequences.

As a result, politicians and businessmen assured us that we had to have economic growth in order to prop up ever greater public spending and that it could be provided only by importing large numbers of workers from abroad.

But why wasn't there a national debate about whether it was wise to mortgage our cultural future for the sake of a mess of financial pottage?

Where were the politicians arguing against the doctrine of multiculturalism which holds that upholding majority values is somehow illegitimate?

Who among the liberal elite's commentariat were challenging the moral relativism that flew in the face of sense and sensibility by insisting that the culture of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Keats's poetry, Turner's paintings and Elgar's music was no more important than - and probably morally inferior to - the cultures of other imported, minorities?

We know the answer all too well. Cries of racism drowned out rational argument - not just here, but throughout old Europe.

As one gloomster put it: "Political correctness, which is to thought what sentimentality is to compassion, means that the intelligentsia of the West has disarmed itself in advance of any possible struggle."

The result of all this, as recent events have made tragically clear, was that British culture was undermined and social cohesion severely damaged.

Separated from mainstream society by geographical and cultural apartheid, which has been fostered by multiculturalism, many immigrants were denied the chance to integrate.

And, instead of being told by the host community that if they didn't want to adhere to the values of a liberal, pluralistic democracy, they should return home, they were asked how they would like Britain to conform to their values.

The story was much the same throughout Europe.

The robust American political commentator, Mark Steyn, a disillusioned Anglophile, has already written us off.

The thesis of his blackly comic book, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, is that the US will survive because the religious Right are confident and reproduce, but that Europe is finished.

It's not just demographic decline, he says, it's also the unsustainability of the modern welfare state in which we depend so much on the State rather than on our own individual resources.

We are also, he believes, suffering from 'civilisational exhaustion': cultural disintegration brought about by big government which has fatally destroyed our sense of self-reliance.

Meanwhile, we are importing large numbers of unemployed youths from abroad in order to maintain our standard of living, yet many of these newcomers have nothing but contempt for our way of life and some even wish to destroy it.

Steyn sees this as a civil war which Europe is too timid even to acknowledge, let alone win. He says: "Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare."

It's hard not to agree with Mark Steyn, especially as every day seems to bring more evidence that as a society we are terminally mad.

For example, this week's fertiliser bomb trial had heard that the key plotters had been radicalised by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, whom the judge condemned as "a master of cowardice who lurked in the shadows".

This was the same firebrand who, as an asylum- seeker here, had pocketed 275,000 in welfare benefits.

Despite all this, I still believe there are grounds for hope - largely because Muslim hotheads have overplayed their hand by blowing people up, rioting in their neighbourhoods or broadcasting hate-filled speeches which alienate them from the host society.

The sharp-suited, soft-spoken undercover agents of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned Egyptian group whose former members include Osama Bin Laden) understand that power is best secured by stealth - by infiltrating institutions and seducing the media.

Libya's Colonel Gaddafi once exemplified this policy. He said: "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

But the violent extremists have provoked some signs of a backlash, not just among the indigenous populations of Europe but among those tolerant immigrants who value the countries that took them in.

The Swedes, of all people, whom liberals claimed had produced a perfect society, are trying to row back on the welfare state, to encourage the work ethic and are demanding that immigrants integrate.

Nyamko Sabuni, a female, Muslim, African immigrant who is now the country's integration and equality minister, insists that all immigrants should learn Swedish and find a job.

She is also intent on criminalising forced marriages, checking girls for evidence of female circumcision and banning the veil, as well as state funding for religious schools. Petitions from Muslim groups demanding she be sacked have so far been resisted.

There are similar small glimmers of hope in other European countries: if Nicolas Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, wins the French presidential election tomorrow, he will have a mandate to restore sanity to France.

In Britain, we have bishops such as Ugandan-born John Sentamu and Pakistan-born Michael Nazir-Ali who are vigorously arguing for indigenous British and Christian values.

Above all, it is time the blunt truth was told about the dangers posed by radical Islam. We wring our hands over Iraq and blame Bush and Blair, but Al Qaeda was engaged on its murderous mission and Omar Bakri was preaching violent jihad in Britain years ago, in the days of Clinton and Major.

Right across the world, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting people of all religions as well as non-believers, because they are trying to impose their will through violence.

But where is the resistance to this? In Britain, we have a consensus imposed by political correctness where such threats are not discussed. In other words, dissenting voices are censored.

The Tories are scared to talk about immigration. Worse still, they're shutting their eyes tight when it comes to confronting the Islamist threat within our midst and the need for Britain to face the threat to its cultural survival and deal with it resolutely.

Yes, the vast majority of Muslims in Britain are tolerant and law-abiding but this is no time for timidity. The enemy may be a minority but he is within, armed and dangerous and we have to deal with him.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Below are a few more mainstream Media articles (Washington Times, BBC News, JewishNewsOne and Time Out) making the same point:-

Britain may be an Islamic nation within 20 years | Washington Times ...
7 Jun 2013 - Now the British government has published a study with data that shows Islam will become the dominant religion within the next generation.

BBC News - Cameron unveils Islamic bond plan
30 Oct 2013
Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that the UK will become the first non-Muslim country to issue ...

UK Muslim immigration: Islam could become dominant UK religion ...
22 May 2013 - Uploaded by JewishNewsOne
An explosion in the Muslim population and an aging Christian demographic could mean Islam will be the ...

Is London's future Islamic? - Time Out
Here Time Out argues that an Islamic London would be a better place ... immigration to the mother country and London became a Muslim capital in another sense. ... of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney will be 250,000.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 16:52:35 GMT
Spin says:
CW; Russia; the last country one refers to in terms of democracy, liberty and equality...

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 17:26:01 GMT
I thought the subject was Russia, ever been there?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 17:27:18 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2013 17:28:10 GMT
Spin says:
Dance; More folk have been to Russia than Russians have been to us...Except in terms of killing folk, of course...

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 17:28:34 GMT
Could you provide more detail please.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:41:03 GMT
S/he's taken the lead from you.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 20:25:51 GMT
The One says:
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Owen Smith 139 17 minutes ago
How do we stop the ivory trade? 101 2 hours ago
The E.U. and the numbers 2 3 hours ago
Age checks... 111 3 hours ago
Is Sport News? 2948 4 hours ago
2....YES 2 tractors on the A27th... 11 4 hours ago
Infrastructure 39 4 hours ago
Stop flying. 9 4 hours ago
You're fat. 4 4 hours ago
The Ivory trade - Do elephants really need ivory. 11 4 hours ago
Why a NEW REICH will rise out of Europes current destruction. 4 6 hours ago
Try The McGurk Effect 0 6 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  21
Initial post:  9 Dec 2013
Latest post:  10 Dec 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer