I did not say it was good I said it was not a hellscape. Just like China is authoritarian and yet hundreds of millions seem to be happy with it so were millions of Soviet citizens.
You cannot overlook that there was a huge decline in the average quality of life for many/most immediately following the demise of the USSR. That harmed many many people.
Their people like it because their culture clamors for strongman, authoritarian leadership. They’re ill, culturally.
Everything about the USSR was objectively bad, just like being hooked on heroin is objectively bad. That some addicts fucking love heroin is immaterial.
Detoxing is painful, and rather than detox, the Russian people relapsed.
Trump got elected in the US and a large chunk of the country still supports him. I guess that means the US has an ill culture that clamors for strongman, authoritarian leadership, or does that not count because of American exceptionalism?
No, the reality is that bad actors can take advantage of instability to gain power and people will go along for a number of reasons (apathy, distracted by just trying to survive, hopes of stability, etc). The US made Putin possible by capitalizing on the collapse of the USSR through shock therapy of forced “free market” principles, creating the oligarchy that exists in Russia to this day.
American culture is susceptible to Trump because American culture is fundamentally distrustful of government. Without reason or rationality, Americans culturally believe their representatives do not represent them, even when faces with evidence to the contrary. This is, historically, because the US was settled and then massively expanded via immigration, by political dissidents, politically/religiously persecuted people, and radicals bent on “making their own way.”
While this leaves us susceptible to “strongmen,” it also leaves us susceptible to populism of all kinds, and is a constant pressure that rational people must struggle against in order to build effective governments.
Before Trump and Sanders, there was the Tea Party. Before the Tea Party, Ross Perot had a fighting chance. Centuries ago, the Know-Nothings were essentially Trumpism without Trump.
Every culture has weaknesses and externalities. The offset in the US is a federal government that usually keeps these people in check. In China/Russia, their federal government is the problem because of their cultural inheritance.
Okay, so you’re saying the US actually is susceptible to strongman, authoritarian leadership and it’s not just a Russian culture thing. Also, what’s up with you equating Trump and Sanders? You don’t seem to be making any sense or have a cohesive point.
No I don’t think it is specifically strongmen. Much of the populism in America is focused on the exact opposite.
Populist demagogues are not necessarily strongmen. Bernie Sanders is hardly an authoritarian, but he is absolutely a populist demagogue.
Russian and Chinese culture specifically glorifies the “great man” pseudohistorical idea, and their cultures are uniquely slanted toward embracing authoritarianism.
What’s up with you equating Trump and Sanders
They’re both populist demagogues, and their commonalities and differences are central to my overall point
You seem to think I’m making a point based on opinion and what I’m doing is describing cultures as they actually exist.
My opinion is in my OP, in which I heavily imply that liberal democracy is the only moral form of government.
Ah yes, the US doesn’t glorify the “great man” like the founding fathers (who were a bunch of privileged land and slave owners), among others. The US has its elites and glorifies them just as much.
You’re going to have to define “populist” because how you’re using it is so broad that it could apply to anyone. You are making a point based on opinion because you think all of Russia and all of China are monocultures. You’re reducing things down by so much as to make them meaningless. You’re also making bold claims like how you think only a single form of government is moral.
As for a populist, I am using the dictionary definition.
a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
This is core to the American zeitgeist and why populists do so well here. Obama coded as a populist in 2008, which is what made his campaign so successful, ultimately, but all of his policy messaging was non-populist. People just heard what they wanted to hear. That’s what makes him so unique in American politics
I did not say it was good I said it was not a hellscape. Just like China is authoritarian and yet hundreds of millions seem to be happy with it so were millions of Soviet citizens.
You cannot overlook that there was a huge decline in the average quality of life for many/most immediately following the demise of the USSR. That harmed many many people.
Their people like it because their culture clamors for strongman, authoritarian leadership. They’re ill, culturally.
Everything about the USSR was objectively bad, just like being hooked on heroin is objectively bad. That some addicts fucking love heroin is immaterial.
Detoxing is painful, and rather than detox, the Russian people relapsed.
You have North Korea level indoctrination my friend. Stop seeing the world so black and white, you sound like a teenager.
No I just understand history.
Trump got elected in the US and a large chunk of the country still supports him. I guess that means the US has an ill culture that clamors for strongman, authoritarian leadership, or does that not count because of American exceptionalism?
No, the reality is that bad actors can take advantage of instability to gain power and people will go along for a number of reasons (apathy, distracted by just trying to survive, hopes of stability, etc). The US made Putin possible by capitalizing on the collapse of the USSR through shock therapy of forced “free market” principles, creating the oligarchy that exists in Russia to this day.
American culture is susceptible to Trump because American culture is fundamentally distrustful of government. Without reason or rationality, Americans culturally believe their representatives do not represent them, even when faces with evidence to the contrary. This is, historically, because the US was settled and then massively expanded via immigration, by political dissidents, politically/religiously persecuted people, and radicals bent on “making their own way.”
While this leaves us susceptible to “strongmen,” it also leaves us susceptible to populism of all kinds, and is a constant pressure that rational people must struggle against in order to build effective governments.
Before Trump and Sanders, there was the Tea Party. Before the Tea Party, Ross Perot had a fighting chance. Centuries ago, the Know-Nothings were essentially Trumpism without Trump.
Every culture has weaknesses and externalities. The offset in the US is a federal government that usually keeps these people in check. In China/Russia, their federal government is the problem because of their cultural inheritance.
Okay, so you’re saying the US actually is susceptible to strongman, authoritarian leadership and it’s not just a Russian culture thing. Also, what’s up with you equating Trump and Sanders? You don’t seem to be making any sense or have a cohesive point.
No I don’t think it is specifically strongmen. Much of the populism in America is focused on the exact opposite.
Populist demagogues are not necessarily strongmen. Bernie Sanders is hardly an authoritarian, but he is absolutely a populist demagogue.
Russian and Chinese culture specifically glorifies the “great man” pseudohistorical idea, and their cultures are uniquely slanted toward embracing authoritarianism.
They’re both populist demagogues, and their commonalities and differences are central to my overall point
You seem to think I’m making a point based on opinion and what I’m doing is describing cultures as they actually exist.
My opinion is in my OP, in which I heavily imply that liberal democracy is the only moral form of government.
Ah yes, the US doesn’t glorify the “great man” like the founding fathers (who were a bunch of privileged land and slave owners), among others. The US has its elites and glorifies them just as much.
You’re going to have to define “populist” because how you’re using it is so broad that it could apply to anyone. You are making a point based on opinion because you think all of Russia and all of China are monocultures. You’re reducing things down by so much as to make them meaningless. You’re also making bold claims like how you think only a single form of government is moral.
Ask a progressive how they feel about Jefferson.
Ask a progressive how they feel about Sanders.
My point becomes clear very quickly.
As for a populist, I am using the dictionary definition.
This is core to the American zeitgeist and why populists do so well here. Obama coded as a populist in 2008, which is what made his campaign so successful, ultimately, but all of his policy messaging was non-populist. People just heard what they wanted to hear. That’s what makes him so unique in American politics