4 ms·

> "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

> "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.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
      > But what are the rest of people doing? They passively accept the elections. So, people not rising in rebellion barehanded against Putin's well funded, armed and organized occupation army counts as Putin's broad support in your book. Serious talk, right.

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.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    > But what are the rest of people doing? They passively accept the elections. So, people not rising in rebellion barehanded against Putin's well funded, armed and organized occupation army counts as Putin's broad support in your book. Serious talk, right.