3 ms·
It's also a projection of: - Desired process: Parlaying emotional suffering into last-ditch displays of heroic boldness - Doing what needs to be done come hel
by themodelplumber 6y ago
It's also a projection of:
- Desired process: Parlaying emotional suffering into last-ditch displays of heroic boldness
- Doing what needs to be done come hell or high water (or, come softness/weakness)
- Mowing down one's fragile sense of self in order to become a new and stronger person via some objective process like meeting a goal
- Winning at all costs (and there will be costs)
Interestingly, the Soviet march-style (just move forward) tech and economic focus has been noted as being a polar opposite to chaotic freedom. In the USA we are faced with a very strange dichotomy in this way; we are ever attempting to transcend historic barriers by uniting economic expedients and technology with a sense of freedom and ethics. This makes us the "weak" state, in various narratives.
In the Soviet Union model, the individual must die; individuals are not leveraged positively in the economic model. It's interesting if you look at the end of the Soviet Union and the tempting role of individualist culture.
IMO it's an interesting archetype, the Soviet Union, but in individuals it can be somewhat worrying insofar as it portrays or carries the subject's inner state for them. This is far from uniformly true across the board, but there are often evidences of striking face validity if you do a lot of work with individuals who are A) in tech and B) suffering. The Soviet Mindset carries a perception that they must forget themselves and go to work, winning at all costs. However if the boss pushes themself this way, for example, their employees may find themselves suffering unfairly under a covert contract with what amounts to the Soviet Union mindset, and this is not exactly the world's healthiest leadership culture.
(I designed a productivity system around these concerns and spent a lot of time reconciling symbol and implications for productivity)
There's also the reverse case, in which one is basically stuck due to subjective emotional complications, and they are effectively rescued by this Soviet mindset. If one needs to adopt an executive mindset, few executive mindsets are going to execute better than the Soviet ;-)
- baybal2 6y agoI think you don't got even a bit how life in USSR was. Through almost all of its history, the public was deeply cynical about anything the CPSU wanted to impose on them. Among common people, the best name for a person naively believing the party was an idiot, and the worst, well much worse. Even among the system's insiders, a double think was universal. Only for a brief three periods of USSR's history, were there any social upheaval, and a semblance of "belief" in it: twenties, sixties, and immediately before the collapse. And every time the soviets made it sure to extinguish that.
- themodelplumber 6y agoWhile that's interesting and I'm sure you know a lot about life there, my comment regards the perception of Soviet symbology, rather than the question of citizens and their experience. What does someone buying or appreciating a poster like this need to know about life in the USSR? Well, not much if the symbology has a hold on them. They buy it for the symbol and its subjective appeal first. Go back and re-read my comment and I think you'll understand this better. This is more about people who are fascinated by any place or even just a poster style, even when they are mistaken about life there. It's a message process between their subjective perceptions and a symbol, rather than an objective historical survey.
- baybal2 6y agoThe place they are fascinated about is only imaginary, it never were. The symbology had to look so imposing, powerful, "having a grip" The "Socialist Surrealism" would be a much better calling for it than socialist realism.