USA all the way.  Better dead than red!

Look at where the countries affiliated with the US are today, and where countries under USSR domination are.  Especially the Balkans and Central Asia.  Wheras the US's allies like Germany, Japan, South Korea are developed and much more free and prosperous.  Also dont forget the gulags and the complete lack of free political expression in the Soviet Union.

USA

Which is not to say that the USSR doesn't have their good points, now or in the past.

Its just the one I prefer.

   hmmm...let me see...interfering with our internal affairs to the point that one of our minister told them to buzz off and leave us alone?

What a bunch of ingrates you are.  How quicky the minds of Switzerland, Italy, Australia, and turkey have forgotten that there was that little thing called the Cold War. I know most of our "allies" are virtually communist now anyway and it's easy for them to find alot to love in their dead collectivistic big brother, but if you think that the politburo had the best of intentions for their european  contemporaries on the other side of the wall, then your either a fool, or a fool who is lying to himself to reconcile a history that never happened to their distain for america. Perhaps our friends in Germany and Turkey  should take  a  little tour of all the closed and operative air and navy bases in their nations, and remember a day(or ask someone who remembers) when there were 4.1 million Soviet troops jsut itching to stomp all over Bonn and Ankara, to say nothing of Rome,Paris, Istanbul, Athens...............

Ha ha ha, Mauk you are so bloody extremely funny

My take would be "none", but if I have to pick one... here's how I view at it:

I've been to USSR pre-Gorbatchov... not a country you'd like to live in. I've been to half ostblock countries - USSR satelites. No good as well.

My country was one of those (only two in Europe but many all over the world) who got a "made-in-USA" junta imposed over them. And I loathe most political decissions USA made during the cold war. And I am leftie too.

But despite those, it's USA by a long shot. I wouldn't like to live in a world dominated by USSR. Not that the current world is great, or anything close. I am just picking the lesser of two evils (but the lesser by quite a distance, indeed).

What utter nonsense. Europe isn't Communist, has little but loathe for the USSR, and no European with his sense in proper condition would ever considering prefering the USSR above the USA. However, how much better the USA is and was to live in, it does not change the way or legitimacy of many detestable actions the US have done against other nations. That the Americans were ready to defend Europe does not in any way give them the right to topple democratically elected governments in other countries or worse - or expect that people should keep quiet about it "since we saved the free world"...

Edit: and by the way, maybe you meant "Austria", since Australia is situated quite a bit outside the reach of USSR.

Hey Hey Hey

First of all since the 1960s, USA has always used Turkey for its own strategic benefits plus all ex-communist countries in Europe enter the EU one by one so there is not much of a problem here....

   Well, Mexico has opposed and backed regimes agaisnt US will in the past. But we are not necesarily agaisnt the US.

  1.- Guatemala 1905. The guatemalan dictator with the support of the US planned to reunit to Central America in a single nation leaded by Guatemala. Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica requested Mexico's assistance. Porfirio Diaz sent 30,000 men to the mexican-guatemalan border and treated to invade Guatemala , if the invaded to the other central american republics. Guatemala invades El Salvador, but the guatemalan dictator ( Estrada Cabrera ) gets killed in the first 2 hours of combat.

   2.- Nicaragua 1909. Mexico sent a gun boat to central america to rescue to the democratic elected president Jose Zelaya. He was defeated by coup d'etat organized by the US.

   3.- Mexico sent weapons, supplies and volunteers to Spain during the Civil War to bak up the Republican goverment.

    4.- Mexico recognized to the Cuban Revolution goverment after the reached the power in 1959.

   We have tried to keep our own points of view from the US ( till now ). But I vote for the US rather than the USSR.

   Regards

I voted Russia.

As this is a history forum I considered it from that point of view and not, as I've seen by some of the comments, from a narrow minded sense of nationalism.

Russia's historical legacy contains so much more interesting material and over a greater span of time - religious, miltaristic, cultural, and political.

Edit: No, I'm quite sure I meant Australia. Perhaps you were simply trying to prove a point quickly, or perhaps your just a fool, but either way the statement �...since Australia is situated quite a bit outside the reach of USSR.�is extremely misled. Maybe your part of Sweden hasn't yet received this information, but the cold war wasn't waged in the nineteenth century. The U.S.S.R. was supporting Marxist revolutionaries in ALL parts of the world. They furnished Cuban, Nicaraguan, Indonesian, Colombian and Angolan Communists with weapons and funds. They placed Missile installations in Cuba, 90 miles from Florida. The Soviet arm, as well as the American reached all over the world. The Australian and New Zealand governments understood this, and perhaps that is why they have security agreements with the United States for decades.

 @ the link. I'll be back tomorrow to comment it, but for starters it doesn't prove your point, it has nothing about claiming Sweden to be a core socialist state, but trying to black-paint it's past to make a political point.

For the leaders, I'll be back to that too and provide a starter - I suppose you've heard of Allende?

  Salvador Allende and the first 9/11 when Pinochet turned the chilean army agaisnt the democratic elected president.

have you no sense at irony, on your posts you have a sig BY A US COMPANY FOR A US PRODUCT.  You partake and enjoy many US inventions, the Ipod, Mac PC etc.  Mass exported internet.

Also remember everyone: if the USSR had won the cold war you would all be shot or sent to some camp somewhere if you disagreed.  There have been many bad US Presidents but none say..Like Stalin.  Artificially state manufactured famines to keep minorities in line, repression of dissent, lower industrial development rate, all these things happened in the Cold War Eastern Bloc nations.

This is why I hate the current US so much, they are so loathsome that everyone hates them but their hatred clouds history and they forget how the US always saves everyone ass when they most need it (in Europe at least).

Actually, the article to which the link links  is an   argument against the commonly held beliefe that modern socialist Sweden is an idilic land of communal bliss.      "Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems".

  I also will be back tomorrow to comment more on this matter, and with a more apropos  link.

USSR with proper leaders and Marxist ideologies, mankind would have advance to a new level instead of becoming a rat race like it is nowadays. Where is the freedom nowadays, there is none. You are rich soon you get bored with the money, and live a totally obscene life. You are bored, you would have been better in cuba rather in a western country.

 Man we don't want the world to become fat and ignorant instead we could have been cultured and equality for all. But communism never existed in the USSR strictly speaking more like totalitarianism. so you are asking us from choosing between Cholera and Malaria. European Capitalism and socialism provides only a temporary solution. I believe everything need however to be cleansed in one massive bloodshed. And we will have to rebuild a new world on a new base.

Yes, I am in fact familiar with the Allende-Pinochet happenings. Before I begin I would like to remind you that all United States involvement in Chillean affairs was undertaken by the CIA and was not even made known to the American People untill 1974. Furthermore, this incident is made virtually moot when compared to the clandestine actions of the KGB during their golden days.(If you can remember, the topic in discussion is "USA or USSR, which one do you favor most?"). I know it is most likely a hard concept to understand when your nation and it's government gets to ride comfortably on the wings of a superpower, but when your fighting an idealogical war against a repressive, proselytizing and belligerent political organism such as the soviet union, you rarely have(outside state of the union addresses) the luxury of high and hollow coffee-shop ideology. I'm not certain on what our good friend and ally Sweden was  doing from 1945-1991, but here in America, we had our hands full with the mundane everyday tasks of trying to keep the balance of power in the world, avoiding nuclear holocaust,rebuilding post WW2 Earth, and leading the free world in competitive scientific and spacial exploration to boot.

Perhaps you can honestly say, without duplicity, that when a minority president(36%), who is leading his already polarized and paralyzed nation straight down the Johnny flusher as well as seizing the private property of your citizens and caudling up to the 'fore mentioned "evil empire",  that you would sit back and say "It's the will of the people. Let it be spoken, let it be done".

Some of the finest moments of the critically acclaimed presidency of Salvador Allende:

1)Defaulted all debts owed by his government to foreign creditors.    "Well done Allende! Be your own boss!"

2)Re-established diplomatic relations with Castro's Cuba, directly violating an agreement made by the OAS that no nation in the Western Hemisphere would do so.         &nb sp;  "See that's what I like about Allende, he'l do what he wants, promises be damned!!"

3)Forced wage increases, putting more purchasing power in the hands of the people, while putting a terminal strain on the means of production. By 1972 food production had fallen and importation had risen.                                                                                          "The I.W.W. would be proud of you Allende!"

Yes, it reminded me quite a lot of the speech Eisenhower made, where he invented two blatant lies* to demean the for him annoying fact that Sweden was a very succesful welfare state (NOT socialist, that's an entirely different matter, even though many Americans I've spoken too seems not to see that). I'll be back later for a lengthy reply, I am in a bit of hurry now.

*One of them being that Swedes were very suicidial, a false image that seemed to have stuck

Doesn't matter at all. The point is, he was democratically elected and the Americans had a large part in over-throwing him.

what a productive argument

niether regiemes are prefferable as proven by:

Quote: but here in America, we had our hands full with the mundane everyday tasks of trying to keep the balance of power in the world, avoiding nuclear holocaust,rebuilding post WW2 Earth, and leading the free world in competitive scientific and spacial exploration to boot.

typical overweening american ignorance

and

Quote: I believe everything need however to be cleansed in one massive bloodshed. And we will have to rebuild a new world on a new base.

psychotic stalinistic self-righteousness of an idea that is unatainable

However:

even though the current balance of power in the world is not prefferable currently it is only a passing thing. Superpowers worse than America have held sway for hundreds of years and the world has survived and gone on to prosper.

How will history view the US.....as the greedy dictators of capitalism who doomed the world to materialism.......or as the saviours of democracy and free will...

depends on who writes it i suppose

Hey Tobodai, you know what my father says? "If you are a communist, make a revolution or sit down and enjoy capitalism"

By the way I met some Mongolians from Ulaanbatur in Hong Kong,nice people...

Neither. I am also neutral.

One evil empire down, one more to go.

Furie

Good argument, matey. Good argument.

You know, for all of Lenin's fans, there sure an awful lot of people trying to come here, and a lot trying to get out of Russia.

You know, I can understand other nations being uneasy about the imbalance of power today.  Completely, especially in light of the actions of the Shrub.  BUT...there will always be someone on top.  What nation would you prefer it to be?

It is impossible for me to choose. I despise the USSR and i despise Putin. I also don't like the American way of seeing themselves as some kind of saviors of the world democracy. The Americans can only bring us the habit of hot dogs and coca cola for breakfast and i would rather avoid that. I don't like American culture AT ALL and although Russians have a long cultural history, they haven't brought any of the good parts of it to us either so i wouldn't like none of them majory influencing me.

Everybody talks bad abouth the USSR and i also hate it, but in the eighties it wasn't that bad here AFAIK although i was only 4 or 5 years old when it collapsed. My entire house was built during the soviet times, BUT the building materials were stolen or smugled by friends who worked at "certain places." And, with the months pay my father got as an electrician you could buy up to a 100 books of world literature classics which my grandparents obtained and i am very proud of that. Today i can buy a couple of books a month only. Although in the soviet times, books were artificially cheapened, but that could be done today aswell, books should be at every home. These days we laugh at the stupidity of the soviets or Russians, we don't worship them. The Eastern European nations aren't waiting for the communists return or something as mauk4678 seems to think. Why dou think the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians formed the "Baltic Chain" in the anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbendrop pact in 1989? To celebrate the unification of the working people?  Europe isn't a socialist haven, and socialism isn't synonymous with dictatorship. Communism, in the right form could be worth of an attempt although it seems impossible today.

 I would rather live in Sweden than in America as far as that discussion goes.  

A common misconception.  The US has only a 280 year old history as an united nation but then some countries - such as Germany have a shorter history as an united entity as well.   The history of the region that was to become the US is actually quite old.

National history. German national history goes back to the first centuries AD. Roman history goes back to the 8th century BC. Greek history goes back to the 25th century BC.

American (as in US) history goes back two centuries.

So, no, it's not misconception, it's plain truth.

Yeah, Soviet only killed off some 30-odd million innocent people, force-relocated several millions other - ethnically cleansed, one would say today - but in the US there are rich people, so let's vote on Soviet anyway. Jolly good argument, there...

No Stalin killed 30 Million people, not the Soviets...

Yeah, and Hitler killed 50 million, not the Nazis...

Only the leader is responsible, those following and supporting him are completely free of any responsibility, eh? Interesting world view.

We do need a rolls eyes smiley.

What do you mean? I can't understand what you are trying to say.

Ok here is the deal:

1.I hate Stalin

2.I only like Khruschev and his policies

3.Stalin and SOME Soviets killed 20 Million people, not ALL Soviet or Russian people

4.I had a swedish girlfriend once named Ylvali

Well, far from all Nazis killed anyone either. I don't see the relevance though, when the question stands between USSR, an aggressive, murderous totalitarian state, and the USA, though far from flawless, the most free and just superpower that has existed. The choice is pretty obvious in my book.

Styrbiorn,Gallipoli is right;those people were killed by Stalin.As you see he was a maniac.Already,other rulers after him criticized his policies and him.

Kalevipoeg,I wanted to say that USSR struggled to equalize people a bit.But in capitalist countries,you can not see a study like that.

Yes, so because he was a maniac all those who obeyed him were totally innocent. Right.... Hitler was also a maniac, do you think all those Nazis who supported him are innocent lambs?

Bah, voting on USSR is not much better than voting for Nazi Germany. Maybe you should try to speak a little with people who actually were affected by them, some Balts, Poles or Hungarians mayhap?

Hmm. For about half of my life Soviet Union was a neighbour country of Poland - my homeland. It was also dominating not only my country but the whole region.

In 1956 Soviets raped Hungary. Also in 1956 polish goverment (soviet puppets in other words) raped my city where was anti communist uprising. In 1968 Warsaw pact raped Czechoslovakia. In 1980-1981 Soviet Union together with other communist puppets were considering if they should enter to Poland and rape it, but luckilly our freedom was raped by our own communist puppets of Soviet Union. And as i said before for about half of my life Soviet union was my neighbour. I would like to know somthing about "good points" of the USSR because i dont see any. But here are so many people with so great knowledge that surelly will show me soon all those "good points" and teach me how cool and great place to live USSR was.

And to the other posters (those who likes USSR) on this forum i cant tell only one thing. It is a pity that USSR does not exist anymore. It would be really cool if you commies could have gather all together and go there, and stay there, untill your last day of life. We all would have profits of that. You would be living in your worker's and paesants paradise and i wouldnt be forced to read your stupid posts. ( i know that i use now here not civilised language but soon someone here may try to want tell us how cool Nazi Germany were, and im going to reply in the same way).

Hi.

I was visiting this forum many times reading opinions of various people but now I think it's high time for me to register because finally I've lost my patience.

To all funs of USRR I would like to write one thing: Mosquito made a mistake because although a country called "USSR" really doesn't exist, its influences are still clearly seen in the Eastern Europe, especially in Belarus which is based on the same ideas as USSR.  So everything is possible! Your dreams can come true! Why not move there? As Mosquito said, it's great chance for you to spend the rest of you live living in your paradise.  But if you don't like a Belarusan climate or you have another prejudice against this country, there is still wide choice: Russia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Mongolia, Romania, Hungary, Serbia and Montenegro - all these countries are poor enough to satisfy people who thanks to the capitalism are so rich that they want to be poorer. But if you prefer warmer climate - it's possible also to choose some exotic countries - Cuba or North Korea.  You would be able to praise your favourite rulers as long as you want and see other people being as happy as you.

Frankly, it's for me incredible that almost 24% of people voted for USSR. But it is clear evidence that USSR still exists. It exists in brains of people, cultural, well educated people of the West.

Please, read some books about USSR written by people who lived there and who knew the real face of that system. Discovery Channel and site  http://www.soviet-empire.com - www.soviet-empire.com  do not show the truth. Try to read some books of Solzhenitsyn ( "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", "The Gulag Archipelago" ) or Polish writer Gustaw Herling- Grudzinski ("Another World") and try to reflect on the fate of people who weren't as lucky as you and didn't have the possibility of moving abroad.

Soviet regime was a twin of the Third Reich. Both killed a lot of human beings and both was created on the base of ideas according to which system is more important than man. In opposite to USA, there were no freedom for anyone.

Making it a figment of the imagination?!?!

I have traveled the western USSR extensively in both pre and post communist fall and I find it interesting to see the dichotomy.  In the late 1970's it was still fearful to complain overly much, so Russians (as the dominant group) have developed a wonderful sense of humor to "obliquely" complain.  One phrase being "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".  I think it encapsulates the USSR and its oppressiveness quite well.  As an immigrant to the US from Europe, I have found the US to offer many more opportunities (with more chances to fail) than Europe offered.  Especially today.

Mosquito, I chose the US because I truly believe that its freedoms allows us more opportunities to succeed. 

When I said "Which is not to say that the USSR doesn't have their good points, now or in the past."  I meant that I chose the US but not at the expense of the USSR or any other country.

I chose the US for what it represents, but I can still appreciate Russian history and culture which is worthy of note and mention, they brought us Peter the Great, who was a great man by almost any standard.

I wonder how great Russia could become if its culture and people are given full freedom to find their own destiny

U.S. all the way

Now, to those people who think American culture is just coca-cola and McDonald's: Get a brain! America can be credited with Emerson, Poe, Melville, Hemingway, Cooper, Twain, James, Kerouac, and a series of other writers who gave us fantastic ouevres. Let's not forget Terry and The Pirates, Thimble Theatre, The Phantom, Mandrake, and of course, The Peanuts. Great ouevres themselves

And then there's Rock n' Roll, you squares.

For those who think that Americana is limited to fast food - Get an education! You're showing as much arrogance as you accuse the Americans of possessing. You snobs! 

As for history. America does have a long history. For the Anglos, it starts in 1609 (methinks). for the natives, it starts sooner.

I think the question can be percieved from 2 perspectives; which is the better one to live in, and which is the better one for the world.

For which one is the better one to live in, I believe the US is the better one, mostly due to Stalin (although some people present solid arguments against Stalin being a 'real' socialist and the kill-figures are rather inflated), and the totalitarian nature of the USSR. On the other hand, it is true that the USSR had better living conditions for the poor, and better social justice. US is unjust, but is more libertarian (less authoritarian), in general a more open and democratic political system. The problem is, the US is becoming even more unjust, and more authoritarian, as well as less democratic.

For the rest of the world, I think it depends where you live. If you are from the USSR sphere of influence you'll dislike them more, but if you come from one of the countless countries which suffered from US (direct or by proxy) aggression, you'll dislike the US more.

I basically believe that the cold war was mostly a realpolitik affair- a struggle for power and influence between 2 superpowers where ideology comes as an afterthought (especially during the Stalin era), but we can also see that for each example of Soviet aggression, there are at least 2 cases of US aggression (mostly through proxy). US is, without a doubt, more belligerent of the two. Again, mostly because of realpolitik- it was the stronger side, not because of its evil ideology. 

I won't answer everthing, but some arguments presented here are quite lame. For instance, virtually all ostblock countries were richer under communism than they are today. It is ridiculous to say that 'Belarus is the same as USSR because it is poor'. Belarus is capitalist today, and is poor because of capitalism (or because the transition to market economy from planned economy was botched). As to Cuba, Cuba is far better place to live in compared to similar Central American banana republics, especially for the poor...

- Edit; The solution is, of course, as I wrote before, to get rid of the imperialist superpowers. Some argue that 'someone will be the hegemon anyway, so you'd better enjoy it'. I think this line of thinking is cowardly, defeatist and small-minded. It is just like people in older eras saying 'someone has to be king, so let's accept this one'. Now we know democracy is possible...

Russian tradition in majority doesn't know the idea of freedom. Its culture was not a result of free will of people as it was in the West. For ages there have been two political ideas: some people were supporting Russian itegration with the West (occidentalism)  but some wanted to avoid it and built their country on the base of terror, fear and starvation.

To the first cathegory belong such people as Peter the Great, Czaadajew, Aleksander Herzen, whereas to the second - Ivan the Horrible, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. Unfortunetely, the second idea had the bigger influence on the politic of Russia. Murder of Catherine the Great and Pavel I, three partitions of Poland, massacre of citizens of Praga and Oszmiana, terror of Revolution, Katyn Forest Massacre, years of communism - there are also "achievements" of Russia.

Finally, I'd like to claim that I have no prejudice against Russian people. But I would like to point out that the system created both by tzars and communists had a lot of disadvantages because it didn't know the idea of liberty and was doing everything to infrindge the freedom of people from Russia and from neighbouring countries.

And in summary, two quotations to show problem of freedom:

Social justice... in USSR...  better living conditions - yes, everybody had a chance to liberate from starvation and go to Heaven... 

All???!!! So I see that at least not Poland... My parents weren't richer under communism - maybe because they made such a huge mistake that didn't join Polish United Workers Party...Firstly ask people from these countries before you decide to talk whether they are richer or poorer...

Incredible....capitalism in Belarus... I hope you were joking, weren't you?

Had religion been approved by the high Soviet that is....

Dear Cornelia. Im not ciritcising personally you but i used your post to criticise all those who today claim that overall USSR was not that bad, especially compared to nowadays USA.

So you can see it much better than i do. For hundrieds years of neighbourhood most of people from my country didnt find anything what Russian culture could have offer to us. Frankly speaking they are a bunch of barbarians in the roman garden.

this sentence especially made me laugh. I think you can still go to Belarus, because they still have kolhoses (state owned farms where the paesants are nothing more but workers) which are working. I have read that this year the police orchestra's were assisting those "state owned farmers" (who are kind of medieval serfs or even slaves). After harvests those poor guys were thanking goverment for that musical support and claimed that harvest were much better than before (they affcourse were also thanking policemen who were playing for them). The life conditions of those people didnt change at all since the USSR times so you Beylerbeyi have a real chance to test it. Just go there and ask for job.

And socials justice for you seems to mean that it is cool when everybody is poor like in 3rd world country except for Communist Party members who live on the expence of the rest. Claiming that central/eastern european countires were richer when they were communist than now is just an idiotism.

Racism eh? Who are you to decide who is a barbarian? How do you interpret the fact that you were actually burning witches 100 years after the Americans in Salem, while the French were revolting for democracy...

Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Lithuania, Latvia, Macedonia (and the rest of Yugoslavia), Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. (Source; UN World Development Report) 

And this is in absolute terms- that means- without compensating for the growth lost in this period. So, you call this 'idiotism'? Bullocks!

Surprisingly, Belarus is about as rich today as it used to be in 1990. As to allegations that it has a socialist economy, the CIA world factbook says that it has a mixed economy (with private banks and industries) which grows at 6% pro annum. Their pro capita income with PPP is 6000 USD, almost the same as Turkey's. That's hardly very poor.

As to social injustice in the US, that the richest 1% of the Americans own 1/3 of the wealth of the USA. The top 5% already owns more than the remaining 95%... Although the USA is the richest country on the planet by far, the US Census Bureau data shows; 

The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002, the U.S. government said in a report Thursday.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent -- as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years, the Census Bureau said in an annual report.

Source; http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/ - http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/

Funny we never hear about this in the presidential debate, btw...

As far as Belarus goes, my teacher said it is an authoritarian regime going on in there.

As far as the social security/aid goes, i was walking with my father in the city one day and he saw some anti-socials walking past us. My father mentioned it to me and also said, that during the Soviet reign you couldn't witness such a thing. The unemployed would be offered some kind of jobs and residences. Or maybe it was just a TABU thing to show existance of this class to the world and they were hidden away or hidden somewhere, who knows.

Degregado, i don't think rock 'n' roll is some sort of a cultural achievement.

Aye, it's the last dictatorship of Europe.

Why I would never understand...

Square!

Oh, and to Gallipoli:

racism? no. But you are for sure ignorant. While the french were revolting polish parliament was voting first constitution in europe and second in the world (after american). And suddenly 100.000 russians came and murdered 10.000 people who were living in Praga, a disctrict of Warsaw. 

virtual monay and virtual statistics. You can even claim that it was a million dollars pro capita a week. The problem was that the shelves in the shops were empty and there was nothing to buy.....for the monay which everyone had lol. Learn that it were official prices and everything what you really wanted to buy you had to look for on the black market - where prices were completelly different. The value of monay was none! purchasing power parity was like 0. LoL, now you made me laugh.

Belorusian growth in other words are all the produckts and commodities which are being stolen by the belorusian state. You might not know it but belorussian custom services confiscates every year, completelly ilegally, claiming that it is kontrabanda or for 1 of 100000 other reasons things which are in transit via their territory and they are worth about 10% of their whole incomes and later they sell it in shops!

So what? you want everyone to have the same incomes or what? people are not equal and never will be  all equal. Some are richer, some are poorer. Some are more intelligent while some are stupid and for example think that USSR was cool.

I have to nitpick on things like this, even if it has no relevance to the actual discussion. There had been "constitutions" in it's definitional sense of the word around for many centuries, but even if you mean US-like constitutions granting freedom and the like you are still wrong. The shortlived Corsican constitution granted in the 1750s was very much alike the American one, and the first part of the Swedish constitution - the Freedom of the Press - was granted in 1766 (Sweden had had a parliamentary 'democracy' since 1722). *nitpick mode off *

If you refer to the notion "constitution" in this meaning then Poland is a parliamentary democracy since the year 1506 or so when Polish seym voted so called constitution "Nihil Novi" which stated that king cant do anything without parliaments approval. As for the freedom of press it wasnt even regulated because everyone was allowed to write whatever he wanted and it has been never limited by any act. So there was just no need to give freedom of the word while people already had it.

So called 3rd May Constitution was different in this that like all the modern constitutions it was regulating the whole political system, all the civil and political rights of the people and the whole the goverment system.

I didn't refer to it in that meaning. And Poland wasn't a democracy of any sort, since the parliament consisted of the nobles, whereas the system I talked about is quite much the system used in Scandinavia today - the people voted on parties to sit in the parliament (it was shortlived though, the so called Age of Freedom only lasted 50 years). Many nations had parliaments though, most notably the English. Though an extremely centralized and militarized state, the Swedish king had for example no right to declare war before absolutism was instituted for a few decades in the late 17th/early 18th century (Karl XII's reign, which ended with the institution of parliamentary democracy - a total reversion) - that was in the hand of R�det, the parliament.

Those kinds of constitutions have existed a long time though. In the sense of giving freedom to the people the Corsican, American and Polish are the oldest ones I know of though.

Really? so how big percentage of the Swedes had full political rights? How many Swedes had right to run for the king in elections? How many Swedes (in%) had right to run in elections for the position of member of parliament? and how many (in %) had right to vote in elections for king or parliament member?

Because for Poland it was: about 15% of people who had right to run for a king, about 15% of people who had right to vote for a king, about 15% of people who had  right to run or to vote for a parliament member.

Up to 15% of people in society were nobles. I should rather say 11% (as TJK says) but i have also read books which estimated number of nobles on 15%.

And Poland was a democracy. The only difference was that its citisens were only nobles.

I love the UNION countries!

And btw Stybjorn. In Great Britain such big % of population like in Poland-Lithuania recived full political rights somwhere in the half of the 19th century after some reforms which lowered the monay census.

Well, but our discussion here is completelly off topic.

Everyone. The peasants choose their representatives, the borgeouis theirs etc, and the parliament was a four-estate affair. Three estates were needed to go through with a descision. Two parties, one conservative and one leaning towards the French Libertarian writings struggled for the power - the former for example started a disastrous war with Russia, the latter created the Freedom of the Press - both were quite corrupted. No one was running for king, since the kingship was as today heriditary and powerless. Anyone could be prime minister though.  Calling Sweden a democracy in the Age of Freedom is a little of a stretch*, but calling Poland so is ludicrous. Percentages doesn't mean everything. Take a look at the rest of the population first, the lawless peasants for example. Just because a tiny part of the population has complete freedom and rights does not make the country a democracy. Apartheid South Africa could be comparable, the small white minority ruling the black majority. But yes, it's OT, my only point was to point out that the Polish Constitution was not the first in Europe, which was the Corsican...

*) The government was uncontrolled and had almost absolute powers, something which led to corruption, a complete mess and the eventual end of the period, when the king, supported by the people, reinstituted the [de facto] monarchy again. 

Originally posted by Temujin the Swiss beat you all anyways....

It's not a question about "beating", nationalist mudslinging is something I hate. I'm here to discuss, learn and teach. 

So the system was limiting the rights of people. The biggest number of people- paesants had only 1 vote in the parliament, the smaller one - borgeouis - also one vote, the gentry who were even fewer - 1 vote.  There was every class represented but their rights were not equal too. Affcourse it is better than in Poland where paesants had no rights at all but still far from "democracy".

In that case we have to agree to disagree. It is definitely a form of limited  democracy IMO, even if the peasants did not have exactly the same representation as the other classes. Everybody had a say, which is more than you can say about the early United States for instance. A little about the numbers though, the peasants did have more representants than the burgeois and clergy combined, but were still underrepresented (as the immigrants are today for example...). The peasants were not represented at all in the commitee handling the foreign policy and the State Bank either - they were considered "too noisy and talkative", of all things

Originally posted by Styrbiorn In that case we have to agree to disagree. It is definitely a form of limited  democracy IMO, even if the peasants did not have exactly the same representation as the other classes. Everybody had a say, which is more than you can say about the early United States for instance. A little about the numbers though, the peasants did have more representants than the burgeois and clergy combined, but were still underrepresented (as the immigrants are today for example...). The peasants were not represented at all in the commitee handling the foreign policy and the State Bank either - they were considered "too noisy and talkative", of all things

If i understood you well the parliament had 4 chambers. And decisions were being voted by chambers, not by the number of the representants.

so - the largest group of the population, paesants had 1 vote for 4. The rest, clergy, gentry and burguise who were all together fewer than paesants had 3 votes. It has nothing to do with the notion "democracy" because the biggest % of population got only virtual political rights. Its moreless like in the Roman republic and its comitta centuriata. Thats a republic system close to this in Poland but just with pseudodemocratic ilusions. The 3 classes were able to win any voting and do whatever they wanted on the expence of paesants. So the minority was able to rule over majority. You cant call it a form of democracy.

The origin of the Communist system, proposed by Marx, would define the state as a device for the bourgoise to exercise power on the proles. Therefore, during the revolution, the Proles would run a "Dictatorship" until all class difference is eliminated.

Everything went according to Marx's vision until the dictatorship time.

My point is, claiming one regime evil and the other one good is not the way we should approach history. The same goes for not blaming the whole of USA for the actions of a few.

Lets talk about Hockey, shall we? The Soviets and the Czechs were unbeateble for a time. Also there was this one basketball match where the Soviets beat the Americans 61-60

So no democracies existed before 1893, and Switzerland was no democracy before 1971? Righto... Universal suffrage do not equal democracy.

Wrong !

This was illegal as the Polish Parliament have issued in 1776 the act of banning the trials regarding witchcraft. The event take place in Pozna� in 1793 which have been in this time under Prussian jurisdiction.

This is the definition of modern democracy but the definition of the word democracy from the time of old Greece up to now has not been constant...