Robert Kocharian

[CheekY]

do you think Kocharian is a "good" president? lol

[Arpa]

do you think Kocharian is a "good" president? lol

Compared to whom?

Abraham Lincoln or Haik Armenian?

[CheekY]

some people diss him so i was just wondering what people on this forum think about him...

[Anoushik]

As Armenia is trying to form into a democratic, independent nation, after years of corruption, Armenia has a lot of obstacles it has to overcome. For the moment, Robert Kocharyan is the best leader in trying to bring Armenia to some order. The problem with Armenians is that ever since Soviet broke down we've expected to see Armenia becoming like the rest of the European countries. Well, we have to realize that it's a long process and one person, one president, cannot do it in such a short time.

 

I said Kocharyan is the best leader for the moment... Compared to whom?... Well, that's the problem, there is no one to compare Kocharyan with... There is no well esablished opposition to Kocharyan. It's just in the Armenian blood to always think that we are all experts in every field and deny any leadership.

[CrystalHye]

ANOUSHIK, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE (LIKE YOURSELF) WHO USE THEIR BRAIN TO THINK AND DON'T RELY ON WHAT THE MEDIA THINKS.

 

Kocharyan IS the best leader we can have right now. To be blockaded by two LONG borders (Turkey and Azerbaijan), to get no respect, no friendship, and no help (as one would say "to get ass") from one other side (Georgia), and to rely on a country who is not liked by many people around the world (Iran), and LIVE IN BETTER CONDITIONS THAN GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN IS GOT TO BE A BRAVE PERFORMANCE.

 

Azerbaijan has tons of oil that they sell and make TONS of money off of. They can fill up their budget instantly. Georgia has the Black Sea which they can use to go to Europe. This means better trade and BETTER economy. We ARMENIANS have NONE OF THESE ADVANTAGES, but we still live better than these two. HOW about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anoushik]

CrystalHye, likewise, I am very happy to see posts like yours.

[Shahumyan]

I think we have to look at the question..

 

Who is he good for?

 

The youth...?

With the dilapidated school system and the rabid corruption in schools at the moment?

Or with the death of extra curriculum activites like sports being smashed after fall of USSR?

Or with end of the promotion of Armenian and Other cultural music ending after USSR and now with open intoxication of uncontrolled unhealthy music, and the death of appreciation for complex music?

 

The Workers...?

With unemployment up at 50%?

With rabid corruption with police?

With the smashing of full employment and job security?

With the unndemocratic control of the means of production?

With the end of workers rights and minimum wage?

 

The Minorities?

With the rise of racism as class consiousness decreases and ignorance increases?

With the end of funnding to support other cultures in Armenia?

 

The Pensioners?

With the end of living pension?

With the winters killing off thousands of pensioners each year?

 

The businessmen?

With the power given into their hands? YES

With bosses having more rights than workers? YES

With bosses bribing the government? YES

With the dictatorship of the capitalists over the means of production? YES

With the handing over of the police and army to protect business interests? YES

 

I hope this will help you decide whether Kocharian is a "good" president...

[Anoushik]

Shahumyan, if you were the president instead of Kocharyan what would you do?

 

Even if you don't want to take place of the president can you still write some solutions to the problems you listed?

[Shahumyan]

yes i can...i hope this doesnt come with an arrogant tone lol, its just i read about this sorta stuff so i know my shit

 

The most important question is "where does power lie", at the moment it clearly lies in the hands of the capitalists (through their puppets in parliament, i say puppets because they have the clear backing of big business)

 

The concentration of power must move towards the workers. How do we do this? well instead of having a boss, the factory has a democratically elected committee which runs the factory in the most efficient manner that it can, increasing wages to the level they should be (ie you get what you deserve, unlike at the moment where you get how much u can comprimise for against the boss who is pushing your wage down). With the amount left over after wage and investment, it goes to bigger body, ie regional council, national council who redistributes the money towards funding for culture, sports, pensioners, minorities etc.

 

The way in which the council operates as a political body, is through a system of delegation, where each soviet is accountable in its decisions to population and its wills. Each member is at risk of immediate recall if his/her deicsions are disliked by workers.

[poghosyan]

the factory has a democratically elected committee

I don't really get this. How are you gonna ensure a 'democratic' election. Is it possible in Armenia? The same parliament members you are talking about are also supposed to be democratically elected.

[Anoushik]

The concentration of power must move towards the workers. How do we do this? well instead of having a boss, the factory has a democratically elected committee which runs the factory in the most efficient manner that it can, increasing wages to the level they should be (ie you get what you deserve, unlike at the moment where you get how much u can comprimise for against the boss who is pushing your wage down). With the amount left over after wage and investment, it goes to bigger body, ie regional council, national council who redistributes the money towards funding for culture, sports, pensioners, minorities etc.

Shahumyan, I knew earlier that you were a communist. But are you serious?

 

Whose factory are you talking about? What kind of a factory would survive without leadership with workers of equal position?

 

You don't have to answer. Most likely I won't reply.

 

... Anyway, my only concern regarding this topic was for people to not think narrow-mindendly and realize that PROGRESS TAKES TIME.

[CrystalHye]

Dear Shahumyan:

 

You're right, there is all sorts of corruption in Armenia, BUT, the same thng is going on in every former USSR country. Even in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia which are sort of MORE advanced. In case of Armenia, the ROADS ARE CLOSED. We got NOWHERE to go. No matter who the president is, its gonna be the same. I promise you, you will not see ANY difference if somebody else sits on the THRONE. The good thing about Kocharyan is that he cooperates with Russia and that keeps the turks away at the moment. WE NEED TO REBUILD. OUR NATION HAS BEEN ABUSED FOR CENTURIES. STARTING 1991, WE ARE STARTING EVERYTHING FROM SCRATCH. IN THE FUTURE, WE ARE GONNA GET EVERY SINGLE LAND THAT HAS BEEN STOLEN(not conquered) FROM US BACK. WHEN WE DO THAT, OUR ECONOMY WILL RISE BECAUSE NOW WE WILL HAVE A BETTER MARKET BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE ROUTES INTO BOTH EUROPE AND ASIA.

 

All this is gonna take time. 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years---it doesn't matter. We WILL get better eventually. And remember, we have a 3,000 year old history, so 100 years is nothing. Our task is to help out our country as much as we can and don't feel bad about the corruptions, those take time also.

[Shahumyan]

Crystal,

Of course the Baltic states wont do any better, they are using the same system! Capitalism, only through the dedmocratic hold of the means of production will anything change.

 

Any elections under a capitalist system will make no difference, they wont be qualititively different.

 

"All this is gonna take time. 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years---it doesn't matter"

-I presume when you say this your sitting in a comfy little chair in Glendale, not think about how the poor people of Armenia are giving their blood to a futile struggle for a better armenia under a market system.

 

Anoushik,

"Whose factory are you talking about?

What kind of a factory would survive without leadership with workers of equal position? "

-Im talking about every factory, not a particular single one

-Who said anythin about equal position? I simply said that management positions should be formed democratically on grounds of ability. Who is more able to know about the ins and outs of a company? Some boss in a leather chair or a representative of each department drawn FROM the department?

 

POghos,

My friend the reason todays parliament positions are democratic is because the capitalists are backing them, if we take the capitlaist pressure away from candidates then it will be deemocratic. ie without media bias for capitalists, or without capitalist financing of candidates

[Sasun]

Come on Shahumyan, the worker has nothing to do with the leadership of the factory. The worker was simply hired to do his work, there is no reason why he should have anything to do with decision making (unless he holds shares). This is not about a country being run democratically, but privately owned business. The business has been established by the entrepreneur, not the worker. Therefore, the entrepreneur should be rewarded and should hold leadership. That is plain fairness. Your ideology is unfairly favoring the worker.

If you regard the management level people as workers, they are appointed by the owners again, and that is only fair. You wouldn't appreciate someone to come and appoint a "manager" on your private affairs, would you? (perhaps someone is better qualified to run your home economy and manage your personal finances). The same way, workers should mind their business only and not eye for things that don't belong to them. And this is mostly the case, unless a communist appears and tells them how they have been fooled by the capitalists, how a revolution is the solution, etc...

[Shahumyan]

"Come on Shahumyan, the worker has nothing to do with the leadership of the factory"

-This is fact under a capitalist system ok.

 

"The worker was simply hired to do his work, there is no reason why he should have anything to do with decision making (unless he holds shares). "

-Again true under this capitalist system

 

"This is not about a country being run democratically, but privately owned business. The business has been established by the entrepreneur, not the worker"

-Under a capitalist system yes, whats new...?

 

"Therefore, the entrepreneur should be rewarded and should hold leadership. That is plain fairness. Your ideology is unfairly favoring the worker."

-Why should the entreupreneur be rewarded with more than the labour he has put into this?

-Lets use example: "Workers employed by Rentokil know all about that. Last year Rentokil's chairman Sir Clive Thompson was paid £2,891,000 - 247 times the average wage of one of his employees."

Had the chairmen wored 247 times harder than the employees then he should have that much more money, but fact is he hasnt.

 

"If you regard the management level people as workers, they are appointed by the owners again, and that is only fair. You wouldn't appreciate someone to come and appoint a "manager" on your private affairs, would you?"

-i dont see how using your own mind and body can be managed by a seperate person, and how it can be used as an analogy for a factory where workers must be employed to fuunction. Whereas i dont need workers to make decisions for me, or to breath, eat, drink for me...

 

"The same way, workers should mind their business only and not eye for things that don't belong to them."

-So you agree then workers are wage-slaves for the boss then?

 

The fact is the boss exploites the worker to an extent to have made a profit, he cant make a profit unless he exploits the worker, ie he pays them less than what their labour is worth.

[Anoushik]

Ok, Shahumyan, I said I wasn't going to reply... but here I go.

 

I understand your position in regards to capitalism. And I also think that for a country like Armenia maybe capitalism wouldn't make an immediate progress, therefore I think a system of socialism could work in Armenia. I lived in Sweden for a couple of years (of course in my early teens and didn't care much for government) and the system they have is socialism. The government has a large role in the management of the economy but unlike communism it doesn't take all the responsibility of the overall management. A small country like Armenia could benefit from a socialist government. But still you have to realize that it still wouldn't make that much of a difference since Armenia is in a blockade and all of the neighbouring region is unstable.

[Sasun]

"Come on Shahumyan, the worker has nothing to do with the leadership of the factory"

-This is fact under a capitalist system ok.

 

"The worker was simply hired to do his work, there is no reason why he should have anything to do with decision making (unless he holds shares). "

-Again true under this capitalist system

 

"This is not about a country being run democratically, but privately owned business. The business has been established by the entrepreneur, not the worker"

-Under a capitalist system yes, whats new...?

Yes, I am describing the capitalist system, and you are confirming that. What I am saying is that is what I find fair.

 

"Therefore, the entrepreneur should be rewarded and should hold leadership. That is plain fairness. Your ideology is unfairly favoring the worker."

-Why should the entreupreneur be rewarded with more than the labour he has put into this?

-Lets use example: "Workers employed by Rentokil know all about that. Last year Rentokil's chairman Sir Clive Thompson was paid £2,891,000 - 247 times the average wage of one of his employees."

Had the chairmen wored 247 times harder than the employees then he should have that much more money, but fact is he hasnt.

 

What do you mean by labor? How do you measure labor? Is labor the only thing to be rewarded? What about talent, education, hinch, risk taking, and ALL other things that are needed to establish and run a healthy and prosperous business? I think you are simply talking about the mere number of hours put in labor. Well, that's not economics.

 

 

"If you regard the management level people as workers, they are appointed by the owners again, and that is only fair. You wouldn't appreciate someone to come and appoint a "manager" on your private affairs, would you?"

-i dont see how using your own mind and body can be managed by a seperate person, and how it can be used as an analogy for a factory where workers must be employed to fuunction.  Whereas i dont need workers to make decisions for me, or to breath, eat, drink for me...

I am not talking about your decisions to eat, drin, etc... I am talking about your financial decisions, decisions that you make to buy things for your household, decisions to handle your finances, to find a job, to get training that will bring income - in other words all decisions that have to do with how you make and spend your money. In the same way, a private business is a private matter for the entrepreneur. If the workers who are employed by him have to make decisions (without him asking for it) that is the same as somebody else making your private economic decisions. Now do you see what I mean?

 

 

"The same way, workers should mind their business only and not eye for things that don't belong to them."

-So you agree then workers are wage-slaves for the boss then?

 

No, there is no slavery. In a free market a worker gets his fair share. If he is worth more then there will be some other employer that will pay him/her more. That is the objective value of his work.

 

The fact is the boss exploites the worker to an extent to have made a profit, he cant make a profit unless he exploits the worker, ie he pays them less than what their labour is worth.

 

"Exploit" is a subjective word, lets be objective - in the economy people are agents that buy and sell, the word "exploitation" is irrelevant to economics. In a free economy every worker is potentially a boss. And every boss could be a worker if that is the wish of invisible hands. In free markets the margin gets very very small due to competition. In the long run everything becomes fair. That is the theory. The reality is not exactly like that - but also not too far away from theory to fail unlike the collapsed Soviet economy.

[CrystalHye]

If you communists are so good and fair, WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEP ARTSAKH?, WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEPS NACHIJEVAN?, WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEP JAVACHK? WHY DID YOU GIVE KARS TO TURKEY? WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEP OUR FIRST REPUBLIC(1918-1921) TOGETHER? WHY DID YOU DIVIDE ARMENIA APART? YOU WANTED TO GIVE ZANGEZUR TO AZERBAIJAN TOO AND IF IT WASN'T FOR NJDEH, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anoushik]

CrystalHye, the bottom line is that Armenians want everything right away. We have no patience. Since Soviet fell apart things did grow worse in Armenia and the former Soviet republics. But it's only because every country had to start all over again.

 

I think today's communists just have a nostalgia about the past and their youth. As time goes on, whatever happened in the past doesn't seem so bad anymore. But people like Shahumyan have to stop and think why Soviet just didn't work and why communism didn't work. And after having experienced that failed existance of communism, how can they still advocate it?

[CrystalHye]

CrystalHye, the bottom line is that Armenians want everything right away. We have no patience. Since Soviet fell apart things did grow worse in Armenia and the former Soviet republics. But it's only because every country had to start all over again.

 

I think today's communists just have a nostalgia about the past and their youth. As time goes on, whatever happened in the past doesn't seem so bad anymore. But people like Shahumyan have to stop and think why Soviet just didn't work and why communism didn't work. And after having experienced that failed existance of communism, how can they still advocate it?

 

 

I agree!!!!

[Shahumyan]

Sasun,

I will open a thread on the issue of Capitalism enforcing wage slavery, so idont worry i havent forgotten you.

 

Crystal Hye,

"If you communists are so good and fair, WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEP ARTSAKH?, WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEPS NACHIJEVAN?, WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEP JAVACHK? WHY DID YOU GIVE KARS TO TURKEY? WHY COULDN'T YOU KEEP OUR FIRST REPUBLIC(1918-1921) TOGETHER? WHY DID YOU DIVIDE ARMENIA APART? YOU WANTED TO GIVE ZANGEZUR TO AZERBAIJAN TOO AND IF IT WASN'T FOR NJDEH, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

Well Lenin said Armenia should have Nakhijivan, Zangezur and Kharabagh, as these were Armenian populated regions, and therefore should have belonged to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, this was the aim of the main Bolsheviks. However, along came Stalin and to please the Turks gave the lands to Azerbaijan...And as we all know Stalin was no communist, going against Lenin and all the Bolsheviks.

You really dont know your History do you? The dashnaks SIGNED KARS over to the Turks, 2 days before the czars russian forces came along, i genuinley cant believe u suggested the communists gave Kars. And who was it that said Armenia should get Kars back after WW2? It was Stalin, who blocked it? Churchill. Please get your facts straight my friend.

How did the communists divide Armenia?

On the question of Zangezur ive already answered you.

 

Anoushik,

I am not nostalgic, well maybe im nostalgic at the way every worker in ARmenia had a job, full free education, incredible health service, excellent recreational activities, the real golden age of armenian literature, the peak of Armenian music, but i suppose your right, i should like the poverty and the end of all culture that was in ARmenia.

As for remembering my youth, as im 18 i dont think i was remembering my youth.

 

The thing is i DO think why Soviet Union failed, and it was because of the rise of beurocrats like Stalin and the whole beurocracy, which decayed the democracy set by the Soviets by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

[Accelerated]

decayed the democracy set by the Soviets by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

 

hahahah - LMAO, the bolsheviks were a bunch of criminal thugs. They didnt come to power through persuasion, but through overt banditry. During the Civil War they freed well known criminals from aruond the Russian Empire to mobilise their thug followers for mass terror.

[Accelerated]

....I should also note, once these well known bandits had outlived their usefullness (ie. the Reds had won), they were all promptly rounded up and executed - well before Stalins terror in the 30s. - that is the reality of Bolshevik beginnings not the glorified garbage we were fed in Soviet schools.

[Shahumyan]

accelerated, you make some bold statements, do you wish to use explaination or evidence?

 

If Bolsheviks werent popular how did they have support of the masses?

 

Bolsheviks were rounded up by Stalin in mid 20's and put on show trials in 30's

[CrystalHye]

i genuinley cant believe u suggested the communists gave Kars

 

what I means by that is that if you communists were so good to Armenia, why couldn't you keep Kars?, why couldn't you take Nachijevan and Artsax back after Stalin? Why did the communists oppose NJDEH when he wanted too keep zangezur? Why did those bolsheviks say that DRO was a terrorist when he faught the war of, Sardarapat, which is probably the only reason that Armenia exists TODAY? Trust me, communists could have done more for us(which would have only been fair regarding our losses from 1889-1918), but didn't!!!!