This "homo sovieticus," has echoes in a few places, as it seems like problem that as always been with us. Most recently, it matches the (a bit vicious, imo) rig

This "homo sovieticus," has echoes in a few places, as it seems like problem that as always been with us. Most recently, it matches the (a bit vicious, imo) right wing "NPC" meme fairly closely, which refers to "non-player characters," a feature of role playing games and videogames whose dialogue and action are rote, and describes people whose ontology is defined by dominant narratives. Arendt talked about them as "Little Eichmanns," in reference to people who think in clichés to justify participation in atrocities and organized crimes against humanity. The existence of the middle class is a fairly modern development, where previously they would have been called the "mob," and mob rule, and the role they played in the French revolution was that of the "sans coulottes." It's a reocurring theme. What's notable about the archetype is that it is independent of class because it is an identity that is the effect of an orientation and alignment to power without a guiding principle. The term I have used for this archetype has been "banal nihilist," but I've come to suspect the idea is conceptually closer to something that some evangelicals are talking about when they talk about "spiritual warfare" (big thing with many of them) where there is essentially a force that seeks to separate the individual from the basic human dignity provided by a belief in God, which elevates humans above animals because we can take moral instruction. This evil wants to spiritually enslave people. A similar evil force comes up in other world religions as well. The idea that we are just animals, and our ethical and moral systems are only material and immediate and accountable to other men is seductive and even liberating in a limited sense, but it deprives life of the possibility of meaning from beyond what we can materially percieve in the moment, as though our purpose could be no greater than that of a cow or a chicken. Whereas, to make anything new, necessarily, you need to believe in the possibility of something you can't yet see, and so a belief in a God as representing something greater than your material circumstances ensures this possibility is always in mind. Without it, you're just a cog, etc. There's probably an evolutionary reason for it, but it seems unreasonably effective. This Homo Sovieticus seems to have analogies to the New Man, the Last Man, and other states of subjugation, and perhaps the lesson from the general theme is that we should be critical of people and ideas that attempt to moralize individual subjugation.