Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts

Friday, January 25, 2013

Socialistic conditioning: In (former) Soviet Russia you’ll be fine as long as you don't try to succeed.

правда в конкурсе
The Crazy Sociology Experiment Buried in a Russian Game Show | Cracked.com: As noted in Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behaviour, contestants on the Russian version of the show quickly became wary of asking the audience anything, because they'd almost always give the wrong answer. You may assume that this is the result of a government health agenda built around the regular consumption of vodka, but you're wrong. As it turns out, it's believed that Russian audiences would intentionally try to sabotage contestants on the show.

See, historically in Russia, everyone in a given community was expected to pitch in; everyone was expected to suffer and to help out. Minor favors like the borrowing of matches, money, and supplies weren't just common, they were expected. However, this collective sense of entitlement meant that anyone who stood out or attempted to make it on his own was immediately shunned and the favors that were once commonplace became nonexistent. For the record, this is the very definition of standing out:

Reality shows and game shows are meant to be a sublimated version of the Roman Circus. Viewers vent out their resentments and lash them out at “those who are going to die, Caesar.” But while some people are patiently (or eagerly) waiting for Richard Bachman’s “The Running Man” to come true, it might be helpful for us to notice that the dystopia is already with us.

There’s no need to talk about “Fear Factor”, even a bland, innocuous show like the Russian version “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” can show us how decades of communism can grind the collective will down. In Soviet Russia, they don’t celebrate your success; they loathe it intensely and try to sabotage it with all their might.

You’ll be fine as long as you don’t try to stand out from the collective.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Chameleonic, ideological mix: Orwell would have smiled


How do we define liberalism? It depends on the landscape. Without going further in analyzing tenets, here’s a small trip around the world and around political definitions/labels: American-style liberalism is called socialdemocratism in Europe. Of course, in America the term liberal has acquired such pejorative connotations that now the preferred word used by liberals to define themselves is "progressive." Just like The Finch and Hillary Clinton like to call themselves.

Politics are dynamic, say politicians that like to change denominations just like they change shirts. Nineteenth century liberalism corresponds to actual libertarianism, of course, and that libertarianism pales in comparison to what was experimented in the late decades of the 19th century. Modern libertarianism equals modern liberalism in Europe, i.e., the old laissez faire. Meanwhile, classical liberalism would be now (via Hayek and Mises) the backbone of what is now considered conservatism in America.

Radical in Europe and Argentina is not even half of what a radical in America is. For European socialdemocrats and amid the current crisis specially, anyone who claims to believe in the free market and small government is labeled a neoliberal (a pejorative word strong in Europe and Latin America), and if he/she is not in favor of the European Union, becomes an ultra-nationalist, and if he/she is not defending secularism at all costs, then he/she is an ultraconservative.

Keep in mind that nowadays by definition any conservative in is an ultraconservative. A neoconservative or neocon is a recovering liberal. A paleoconservative is what people in South America call a “godo.” For the socialdemocrats and progressives alike, all conservatives all the same: extremists. But not ironically for conservatives, the liberals, progressives and socialdemocrats are all leftists, and if we have to use the word, commies. And as long anybody is not showing pictures of Hitler and swastikas, or is brandishing a weapon to establish a communist revolution (note that the extremes are asymmetrical), all are considered "center-left" or "center-right," although more than an knowledgeable experts gets in the same bag both the Nazis and the Communists as Nazi is an abbreviation for national - socialism.


The political struggle is easier when we are the reasonable ones are and the others are the extremists.
Enhanced by Zemanta