3 ms·

> Russians for their learned helplessness, calling them weak, docile, etc. "learned helplessness" yes "calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of thi

> Russians for their learned helplessness, calling them weak, docile, etc. "learned helplessness" yes "calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this going on in any meaningful scale. About the "learned helplessness" and general apathy it's true and the product of many things, one of them a very targeted effort to make the people internalize this during a whole century. China is very similar in this regard too. All those "decadent" western democracies went through periods of very violent internal wars, centuries of constant internal "cold wars" where the main objective was "democracy" that includes many things like separation of State/Justice/Free Speech, a minimum standard of living ( not just economic ) that society itself does not tolerate existing below that, etc. I'm talking about the real practical thing, not the "cerimonies" or the theatrical plays of "democracy" authoritarian regimes like to show. Russia never had that, it had a lot of violence, but for other reasons. One of the main one is Imperialism. "Russia" in reality is pretty much just Moscow and nearby lands, but Russians have imperialism in their psyche. That's why the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, etc are considered "brother" nations. Because most people in Russia would see no problem if they were somehow "peacefully" integrated in Russia. But when it comes to pay the price, Russians are "apathetic" because even with all those big speeches and grandiose imperial ego, they know anyone who shows initiative becomes a target. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but the best thing to happen to Russia would be to breakup in other states as much as this stupid brutality has been to keep it's internal integrity. That's also why they are always inventing evil external enemies.

mihaaly 3y ago
> "calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this going on in any meaningful scale. That is a shame because they actually are. I feel the same coward and pity venal attitude with the Hungarian people - being a soulmate of Russians in this regard - whom I grown up with. They would be very vocal about being proud and brave but the actions only show shortsighted submissive conformity to ruthless tyrants for pity same day breadcrumbs - from the wealth taken away from them. Or just liking if others take charge, instead of the freedom to act that comes with taking responsibility for own actions. Smart people using their talents to screw with others, or just laying low in the hope to get by, whatever happens. Whatever! (a good few even participating for similar reasons, and of course there are scores participating, since Putins and Orbáns would just be laughing stock without the complicity and active support of masses)
- culebron21 3y ago
  At first I wanted to argue with your point (suggesting that the elites are to blame much more than ordinary folks) but thinking more, I just want to correct. Submissiveness that you mention implies that people understand their interests, what's just (in broad sense), and just don't want to act. And we expect that finally they'll wake up and rebel. I also went to street protests in 2021 when Navalny was enjailed, expecting something to change, but was reminded of what I knew from sociology earlier. Studies showed that it's not submissiveness in post-totalitarian people that stops them. It's rather immoralism and double-think. People see status-quo challengers as suspicious, and discredit them. They distrust the government -- that's why Russian opposition speakers insist that "Putin has no broad support". But they also hope the state will take care of them, and constantly seek signs of this. They hate state officials, but discedit those who challenge them and goes in politics -- especially those trying to pursue interests of common folk. These traits of character developed as defense to totalitarianism -- interference with private life and demand of loyalty, and daily hardships. This was describen in a book "Simple Soviet man" (1993) by sociologist Yuri Levada, summarizing his studies of post-Soviet people's views and their contradictions. There are brief descriptions of it in Englihs, try searching for them.
  - mihaaly 3y ago
    Good thoughts, sounds true, thanks telling!
  - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    > Putin has no broad support Putin's support is so broad that he never dared to prove it with some real elections. But for some reason he only competes with candidates who were hand-picked by his administration and posses a very questionable reputation. And even against them he resorts to cheating and adding himself votes via various tricks. Broad support, right.
    - culebron21 3y ago
      I see you're not into serious talk, just attacking, but I'll respond: you're absolutely right and wrong both. Sure, if you try hard and look for only core supporters, you can get a figure of 25, 20, 15% of voters. If you look at elections and the real % of votes from all people, even correcting for manipulations, you'll also get a this modest figure of, let's say, 15-20% of core supporters. But what are the rest of people doing? They passively accept the elections. There's a curious poll results by Levada team showing that 2/3 of people distrust the elections, yet 2/3 accept the results afterwards as legitimate. They don't rebel and so on. And the reason is what I wrote above. You may even suggest that Levada's pollsters are manipulating people with questions, and theorize that in some way you could find what people REALLY think. The problem is why don't they assert it? Is it a real opinion that is not told and that not turns into action? And also, unlike sociologists who try to correct for bias and not influence the answer, the government actually does manipulate people all the time, and makes the undecided middle be loyal. So insisting on this, "Putin has no broad support", you ignore the mode complex and sad reality.
deanCommie 3y ago
> All those "decadent" western democracies went through periods of very violent internal wars, centuries of constant internal "cold wars" where the main objective was "democracy" > Russia never had that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution Look I know it's been 100 years and we understand now that the Soviet Union ended up being a force for authoritarian evil. And that all the communist republics having "Democratic" in their name sounds as ridiculous as North Korea doing it today. But it didn't have to be that way. The ideals of communism and marxism are pretty inspiring and humanist - on paper. They'd never been tried. That they were corrupted by Lenin then Stalin - if they were even incorruptible in the first place - noone knew that at the time. The only objection the west had to any of it for the entirety of the 20th century was that it intervened with the flow of capital and economics. The proof of that is China which, is obviously the main global competitor to the west, and the risk of an actual war over something like Taiwan is non-zero, it is a far cry from the constant imminent threat of thermonuclear annihilation. And just because the Soviet Union became the symbol of everything that stands against freedom for 50 years in the 20th century, doesn't mean that in the moment the Russian Empire was any better. Ordinary Russians at the start of the 20th century were some of the most repressed and unfree people in the entire world. They fucked it up but they did try. Then "real" democracy came in, and turned out to be in many ways worse for the median Russian. The median Russian quality of life was worse in the 90's than in the 80's. While the oligarchs got richer and crime took over the country. The people turned to a powerful leader like Putin and legitimately reinforced his power because he made the country safe. In the end your conclusion is correct. "Russia" needs to die, needs to end as a concept. It needs reinvention from the ground up. And I don't know if the median Russian is capable of creating something better. Anyone with an ounce of brain or integrity left a long time ago.

mihaaly 3y ago

> "calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this going on in any meaningful scale. That is a shame because they actually are. I feel the same coward and pity venal attitude with the Hungarian people - being a soulmate of Russians in this regard - whom I grown up with. They would be very vocal about being proud and brave but the actions only show shortsighted submissive conformity to ruthless tyrants for pity same day breadcrumbs - from the wealth taken away from them. Or just liking if others take charge, instead of the freedom to act that comes with taking responsibility for own actions. Smart people using their talents to screw with others, or just laying low in the hope to get by, whatever happens. Whatever! (a good few even participating for similar reasons, and of course there are scores participating, since Putins and Orbáns would just be laughing stock without the complicity and active support of masses)

culebron21 3y ago
At first I wanted to argue with your point (suggesting that the elites are to blame much more than ordinary folks) but thinking more, I just want to correct. Submissiveness that you mention implies that people understand their interests, what's just (in broad sense), and just don't want to act. And we expect that finally they'll wake up and rebel. I also went to street protests in 2021 when Navalny was enjailed, expecting something to change, but was reminded of what I knew from sociology earlier. Studies showed that it's not submissiveness in post-totalitarian people that stops them. It's rather immoralism and double-think. People see status-quo challengers as suspicious, and discredit them. They distrust the government -- that's why Russian opposition speakers insist that "Putin has no broad support". But they also hope the state will take care of them, and constantly seek signs of this. They hate state officials, but discedit those who challenge them and goes in politics -- especially those trying to pursue interests of common folk. These traits of character developed as defense to totalitarianism -- interference with private life and demand of loyalty, and daily hardships. This was describen in a book "Simple Soviet man" (1993) by sociologist Yuri Levada, summarizing his studies of post-Soviet people's views and their contradictions. There are brief descriptions of it in Englihs, try searching for them.
- mihaaly 3y ago
  Good thoughts, sounds true, thanks telling!
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  > Putin has no broad support Putin's support is so broad that he never dared to prove it with some real elections. But for some reason he only competes with candidates who were hand-picked by his administration and posses a very questionable reputation. And even against them he resorts to cheating and adding himself votes via various tricks. Broad support, right.
  - culebron21 3y ago
    I see you're not into serious talk, just attacking, but I'll respond: you're absolutely right and wrong both. Sure, if you try hard and look for only core supporters, you can get a figure of 25, 20, 15% of voters. If you look at elections and the real % of votes from all people, even correcting for manipulations, you'll also get a this modest figure of, let's say, 15-20% of core supporters. But what are the rest of people doing? They passively accept the elections. There's a curious poll results by Levada team showing that 2/3 of people distrust the elections, yet 2/3 accept the results afterwards as legitimate. They don't rebel and so on. And the reason is what I wrote above. You may even suggest that Levada's pollsters are manipulating people with questions, and theorize that in some way you could find what people REALLY think. The problem is why don't they assert it? Is it a real opinion that is not told and that not turns into action? And also, unlike sociologists who try to correct for bias and not influence the answer, the government actually does manipulate people all the time, and makes the undecided middle be loyal. So insisting on this, "Putin has no broad support", you ignore the mode complex and sad reality.

deanCommie 3y ago

> All those "decadent" western democracies went through periods of very violent internal wars, centuries of constant internal "cold wars" where the main objective was "democracy" > Russia never had that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution Look I know it's been 100 years and we understand now that the Soviet Union ended up being a force for authoritarian evil. And that all the communist republics having "Democratic" in their name sounds as ridiculous as North Korea doing it today. But it didn't have to be that way. The ideals of communism and marxism are pretty inspiring and humanist - on paper. They'd never been tried. That they were corrupted by Lenin then Stalin - if they were even incorruptible in the first place - noone knew that at the time. The only objection the west had to any of it for the entirety of the 20th century was that it intervened with the flow of capital and economics. The proof of that is China which, is obviously the main global competitor to the west, and the risk of an actual war over something like Taiwan is non-zero, it is a far cry from the constant imminent threat of thermonuclear annihilation. And just because the Soviet Union became the symbol of everything that stands against freedom for 50 years in the 20th century, doesn't mean that in the moment the Russian Empire was any better. Ordinary Russians at the start of the 20th century were some of the most repressed and unfree people in the entire world. They fucked it up but they did try. Then "real" democracy came in, and turned out to be in many ways worse for the median Russian. The median Russian quality of life was worse in the 90's than in the 80's. While the oligarchs got richer and crime took over the country. The people turned to a powerful leader like Putin and legitimately reinforced his power because he made the country safe. In the end your conclusion is correct. "Russia" needs to die, needs to end as a concept. It needs reinvention from the ground up. And I don't know if the median Russian is capable of creating something better. Anyone with an ounce of brain or integrity left a long time ago.