Hacker News Reader

Comment by kghose | Hacker News Reader

Russia seems to me to be a tragic nation. No matter what the management the people seem to get a bad deal. It is interesting to me that technical education in Russia has always been quite good - the United States benefited from a lot of Russian scientists emigrating after the iron curtain lifted, Russia had an advanced space program, Russia had a good (if somewhat unregulated) medical system, with many pioneering techniques developed. Russia, of course, had many interesting literary figures.

But the management sucks. And the common theme - except for that brief interlude of glasnost - is information hiding. The truth about things - the economy, politics - is twisted and turned until the twisters themselves probably don't know what the truth was.

The lesson from Russia is, only freedom of information - news and views - can save a society. technical excellence and progress is nothing.

View on HN

The management of Russia has indeed been broken for most/if not all of its history. I do not think it is a matter of freedom of information. With the internet, they have the tools to receive news/views from multiple sources.

The problem I have seen personally within Russia, is the lack of political involvement of most people. Political involvement and desire to learn more is not there. Within the US, a large percentage of people talk about politics in one form or another, but it does not happen in Russia very often. They are more concerned with the problems of day to day living. A very pessimistic attitude and aloofness of the political system and what to do to change it.

More people in Russia need to be active and aware of politics and challenge powerful politicians.

In the US, getting involved with or simply persuasively discussing politics (usually) won't get you harassed, intimidated [1], thrown in jail, or "disappeared". It's quite possible people in Russia refrain from such activities because they're either smart or afraid.

[1] unless your name is Catherine Engelbrecht: https://www.google.com/search?q=catherine+engelbrecht

Americans should be more cautious about claiming a true qualitative advantage over places where political involvement could be considered futile.

You do realize that African Americans faced similar obstacles, but were still politically involved to gain rights. Abortionists and gay people were as well. Both faced physical threats. Being imprisoned was the case for African Americans during the 60s-70s.

If Gilens and Page are right and it is true that the will of the people is observed only in cases that do not matter to the rich and powerful, then all that work to gain voting rights was, in fact, futile.

The US has a closely managed "democracy." We vote. But it has about as much effect as the button at crosswalks. We can state our opinions, but they are monitored closely enough to chill fundamental change. Would you call that actual freedom?

chill fundamental change: Women's right to vote, African American right to vote, 16 constitutional amendments, legalization of drugs in many states, marriage for gay people in many states, abolition, abolishing abolition, end of Vietnam war, etc, etc.

Just because you view of fundamental change is different, doesn't mean we haven't made fundamental changes. Making changes this broad should take a long time.

So, yes we do have actual fundamental freedom.

>No matter what the management the people seem to get a bad deal.

...maybe having management at all is the problem then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com