3 ms·
It works the exact opposite way. People from totalitarian shitholes improvise a lot more than people from functioning democracies (because they have to improvi
by ajuc 2y ago
It works the exact opposite way.
People from totalitarian shitholes improvise a lot more than people from functioning democracies (because they have to improvise to survive daily life). And they trust their state and follow the rules a lot less (and for a good reason - their state exploits and lies to them to a degree you can't imagine living in a free country).
USA wouldn't send its army to Mexico with 12 hours of fuel telling the soldiers it's exercises. After selling half the fuel and ammo on black market and providing them with faulty non-spec tires so that significant percentage of their vehicles just broke the first week it actually had to drive somewhere.
Russian army did all of the above, on a massive scale. Nobody in Russia was surprised except maybe putin. IMHO he was more surprised that Ukraine was organized than that his own army wasn't.
Think for a while how you'd adapt to living in such a society. One of the first things is that you pretend to do what they tell you and then completely ignore it and do whatever you can to survive. And then to adapt to that - the army has units that shoot at you from behind if you don't want to be a "meat wave" in the next frontal attack.
Army won't provide you shoes your size? Steal. Army won't provide you drones or anti-drone measures? Cope cages and loot Mavics from malls. Etc. In totalitarian countries (and I've lived in one so I'd know) everybody had to learn DIY cause you couldn't trust the economy/country to provide you with the things you need.
Oligarchy and libertarianism is the same system, just looking from POV of rulers vs ruled. When society doesn't work people have to be libertarians. When everybody's a libertarian - oligarchs rule and society doesn't work.
- cmrdporcupine 2y agoYou nailed it. Lack of social solidarity and communal trust has got to be a kiss of death in wartime. Especially when fighting against an opponent who has it in spades. (US in Vietnam, Russia in early days of the war in Ukraine, etc.).
- whatshisface 2y agoThat is all true, except there's another reason people learn to DIY. That is when they have a basically functional government and economy but live in a rural area. The US libertarian ethos stems from a cultural memory of pioneers and farmers that couldn't be served by a centralized state.
- cafard 2y agoOk, but who acquired the land for them?
- whatshisface 2y ago[flagged]
- asacrowflies 2y agoThis is basically entirely false ... They would only move into settle AFTER the government clears the land of most natives and signed "treaties" with others. Along with mass relocation and government programs to incentivize the settlers like encouraging the military to kill all Buffalo on site or actively salt spring water sources in favour of European deep wells.etc.etc.
- vel0city 2y agoThis isn't really clarifying the question of "who acquired the land for them", just acknowledging they (sometimes? often?) had to defend for themselves out there. In the end those settlers purchased deeds to those lands often for very cheap from the US federal government and expected for the federal government to support their Westward movement (which often did happen as well). They acquired the land from the government and expected some amount of protection provided by the federal government as well. And even then a ton of that settlement happened after many wars and what not with Native American tribes and groups in those territories.
- whatshisface 2y agoWithout getting into the (worthwhile) details of US expansion, it's important to note that the security provided by the continental and federal governments did not stop raids, and on a scale of services provided relative to dysfunctional present day governments was truly hands-off. There is running water in Aleppo.
- bumby 2y ago>And they trust their state and follow the rules a lot less It was my understanding that the opposite was true in Ukraine early in the conflict. Russia suffered high casualties because they still relied on a central command structure and field leaders were reluctant to make decisions without the express validation of their superiors. This led to them being sitting ducks as they waited for confirmation, and resulted in many high level soldiers being killed because they had to travel to the front lines to communicate orders for any effect.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ajuc 2y agoThe centralised structure, the lack of trust and selfishness, and the improvisation and ignoring the rules are all connected. The less people care about rules - the harsher you have to be to enforce them. The high level officers had to go to the front lines not because foot soldiers were helpless without them. They had to go there because without them the soldiers would ignore the orders to go forward, hide in relatively safer place, start looting and lie in the reports they executed the orders perfectly killing thousands of enemies :) Remember when Ukraine invaded Kursk region this year? Kadyrov troops that defended the border there said they were "bypassed" by Ukrainians when they "were eating dinner" :)