3 ms·

I doubt they would make you a cosmonaut without being a convincing communist, the same way they wouldn't probably make you an American astronaut if you were one

I doubt they would make you a cosmonaut without being a convincing communist, the same way they wouldn't probably make you an American astronaut if you were one. If he were a doubter, it would still make sense to include that to potentially make it easier for his family to obtain or preserve a decent position in the Soviet society. These sorts of heroes were supposed to be idols and demigods of the country. This wasn't a society that would respect you having a private apolitical part of life, especially for a man of such a position. I almost wrote how people are clueless about living under totalitarianism, where there can really be no such thing as truth or honesty. Except maybe heavily drunk in a small company in a dacha, if you're feeling adventurous. But really I think people would often pay lip service to any social orthodoxy in such a situation (contrary to what you might think), because of the benefits of psychical comfort and fitting in.

rglullis 4y ago
> I almost wrote how people are clueless about living under totalitarianism, where there can really be no such thing as truth or honesty Now let's apply this to the modern days, where declaring yourself as a conservative can kill your career and activists feel justified in screaming to your face on the street if you refuse to regurgitate their rally cries.
- stereolambda 4y ago
  If you want to go there, being harassed by an opinionated mob is actually a mostly democratic phenomenon. In an autocracy, it would be a beating, either by the police, or thugs operating in agreement and probably paid by the police. You wouldn't even think of speaking openly of your views, or being beaten, as of things a sane person would do. Not condoning anything BTW.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Does it really matter the what and the who, if in practice both are effecting total submission and/or supression of dissent?
    - stereolambda 4y ago
      Look, I think your career ending example would make a better case for what you are trying to argue. If you dig into history of longstanding democratic countries like US and Switzerland, you find plenty of rioting and chaotic infighting throughout centuries. Classic republican (as in, US founders) thinking would be that while unfortunate, this is preferable to a police state being able to establish a true monopoly on violence. Then you could have your "order" and "safety", but at the cost of naturally deteriorating toward thinking and doing only what the central power allows you.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        I don't think we are disagreeing. Of course ideological and political conflict are to be expected in any healthy civil society. But my argument is that the threat of violence by the government is no longer what keeps people quiet, no matter how discontent they are.
    - mind-blight 4y ago
      Honestly yes. While I'm not going to comment on the behavior itself, the difference between individuals a acting as a group and the state is such an important distinction that it's written into our constitution. Much of the bill of rights is about what the state can't do to you in a way that doesn't impact how private citizens interact. Not saying it's perfect, but I'm far less concerned about an internet mob coming after me than the US government

rglullis 4y ago

> I almost wrote how people are clueless about living under totalitarianism, where there can really be no such thing as truth or honesty Now let's apply this to the modern days, where declaring yourself as a conservative can kill your career and activists feel justified in screaming to your face on the street if you refuse to regurgitate their rally cries.

stereolambda 4y ago
If you want to go there, being harassed by an opinionated mob is actually a mostly democratic phenomenon. In an autocracy, it would be a beating, either by the police, or thugs operating in agreement and probably paid by the police. You wouldn't even think of speaking openly of your views, or being beaten, as of things a sane person would do. Not condoning anything BTW.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Does it really matter the what and the who, if in practice both are effecting total submission and/or supression of dissent?
  - stereolambda 4y ago
    Look, I think your career ending example would make a better case for what you are trying to argue. If you dig into history of longstanding democratic countries like US and Switzerland, you find plenty of rioting and chaotic infighting throughout centuries. Classic republican (as in, US founders) thinking would be that while unfortunate, this is preferable to a police state being able to establish a true monopoly on violence. Then you could have your "order" and "safety", but at the cost of naturally deteriorating toward thinking and doing only what the central power allows you.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      I don't think we are disagreeing. Of course ideological and political conflict are to be expected in any healthy civil society. But my argument is that the threat of violence by the government is no longer what keeps people quiet, no matter how discontent they are.
  - mind-blight 4y ago
    Honestly yes. While I'm not going to comment on the behavior itself, the difference between individuals a acting as a group and the state is such an important distinction that it's written into our constitution. Much of the bill of rights is about what the state can't do to you in a way that doesn't impact how private citizens interact. Not saying it's perfect, but I'm far less concerned about an internet mob coming after me than the US government