4 ms·

You can't force democracy on people. US - as a state and as private persons (Soros in particular) invested a lot into trying to build up democratic institutions

by smsm42 4y ago

You can't force democracy on people. US - as a state and as private persons (Soros in particular) invested a lot into trying to build up democratic institutions (at least as they understood them) in Russia. It didn't work, and in part it didn't work because Russians seemed not to value the same things Americans value. Now, I am talking in generic, in broad strokes - which is never 100% true for any society, it's always more complex. But you can identify the major tendencies and likelihood of certain ideas to win or wither. At least significant part of Russians seems to be ok with having no free speech, no real elections and no independent judiciary or other democratic institutions - as long as they are reasonably safe, physically and economically, and the bad things only happen to those who speak up or somehow do something "wrong" (which includes demanding to have those institutions publicly). They have been living this way for decades, and they have been living in much worse way - where bad things happened to pretty much everybody, regardless of what you do - for decades before that. Looks like they developed some habits that make their society very atomized and politically inert. Couple that with significant resentment of formerly having great empire (it was nominally "Soviet", not "Russian", but everybody knew where the capital was - in Moscow, right?!) and now being forced to play by the rules they did not write - and you get the full Weimar picture, and you know where that leads. Not to the thriving democracy. I don't think any "Marshall Plan" would have helped - and Russian wouldn't accept this magnitude of intrusion anyway.

lapcat 4y ago
> You can't force democracy on people. The Marshall Plan was economic recovery assistance, and it went to allies as well occupied territories. "The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total). The next highest contributions went to France (18%)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan Russia had already implemented its own elections after the fall of the USSR. The US didn't need to force that. The point is just to support Russia in its transition, not to force it. You speak of the Weimar Republic. The lack of a "Marshall Plan" after WWI and the harsh conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles were a big factor in the failure of the Weimar Republic. > At least significant part of Russians seems to be ok with having no free speech, no real elections and no independent judiciary or other democratic institutions This is true also in the United States...
- smsm42 4y ago
  Yes, Russia briefly had free elections. Unfortunately, this did not result in a functioning democratic society - not because of lack of resources, but because of lack of desire to resist the oligarchical clique that managed to control, subvert and ultimately destroy the democracy. That wasn't the problem of the economy - in fact, Russian economy in a better shape now than it was in the 90s - it's a societal problem. > This is true also in the United States Sadly, true - but hopefully, it is still possible to avoid Russia's fate. Even though many institutions - including major part of technological leadership - are leading us to the same place, where expressing dissent is virtually impossible and any political action is only possible with approval from above - ironically under the slogans of "preserving democracy" and "fighting misinformation". We're not there yet, but the road has been built and we are marching along it. What works for us is we can see where this road ends, so maybe we can find in ourselves to stop and turn back before it's too late.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Russian economy in a better shape now than it was in the 90s It's too late, though. The 90s were a make-or-break time for democracy and freedom... and it broke. Initially there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the elimination of the Soviet Union, but ultimately democracy needs to produce results economically, and if it doesn't, then people will reject it. > many institutions - including major part of technological leadership - are leading us to the same place I find it amusing that we're talking about different groups. I have no love for big tech companies and would break them up, but I was actually talking about the people who want to establish a Christian theocracy in the United States, who recognize no separation of church and state, who refuse to accept the results of democratic elections, who are perfectly happy with minority rule via electoral college and gerrymandering, who refuse to even hold a vote on any Supreme Court nominee in the last year of one President's term but then ram through a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of the next President's term, who give dictatorial powers to Governors of their own party, but then take away those powers right after losing Gubernatorial elections, who have a laundry list of subjects they ban from discussion in schools via school boards and/or legislatures, etc.

by smsm42 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> You can't force democracy on people. The Marshall Plan was economic recovery assistance, and it went to allies as well occupied territories. "The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total). The next highest contributions went to France (18%)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan Russia had already implemented its own elections after the fall of the USSR. The US didn't need to force that. The point is just to support Russia in its transition, not to force it. You speak of the Weimar Republic. The lack of a "Marshall Plan" after WWI and the harsh conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles were a big factor in the failure of the Weimar Republic. > At least significant part of Russians seems to be ok with having no free speech, no real elections and no independent judiciary or other democratic institutions This is true also in the United States...

smsm42 4y ago
Yes, Russia briefly had free elections. Unfortunately, this did not result in a functioning democratic society - not because of lack of resources, but because of lack of desire to resist the oligarchical clique that managed to control, subvert and ultimately destroy the democracy. That wasn't the problem of the economy - in fact, Russian economy in a better shape now than it was in the 90s - it's a societal problem. > This is true also in the United States Sadly, true - but hopefully, it is still possible to avoid Russia's fate. Even though many institutions - including major part of technological leadership - are leading us to the same place, where expressing dissent is virtually impossible and any political action is only possible with approval from above - ironically under the slogans of "preserving democracy" and "fighting misinformation". We're not there yet, but the road has been built and we are marching along it. What works for us is we can see where this road ends, so maybe we can find in ourselves to stop and turn back before it's too late.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Russian economy in a better shape now than it was in the 90s It's too late, though. The 90s were a make-or-break time for democracy and freedom... and it broke. Initially there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the elimination of the Soviet Union, but ultimately democracy needs to produce results economically, and if it doesn't, then people will reject it. > many institutions - including major part of technological leadership - are leading us to the same place I find it amusing that we're talking about different groups. I have no love for big tech companies and would break them up, but I was actually talking about the people who want to establish a Christian theocracy in the United States, who recognize no separation of church and state, who refuse to accept the results of democratic elections, who are perfectly happy with minority rule via electoral college and gerrymandering, who refuse to even hold a vote on any Supreme Court nominee in the last year of one President's term but then ram through a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of the next President's term, who give dictatorial powers to Governors of their own party, but then take away those powers right after losing Gubernatorial elections, who have a laundry list of subjects they ban from discussion in schools via school boards and/or legislatures, etc.