7 Answers

  1. In the 60s, the US population did not have a request for racial equality. More precisely, not to a greater extent than in the Russian Federation now on freedom. By the way, the same equality of citizens was, in fact, written down in the Constitution , just as we have now, theoretically, democracy, separation of branches of government, federal structure of the country, freedom of assembly, lack of censorship, etc.

    Then change the situation-so much so that Obama is now in his second term in the White House, allowed two things at the same time.

    1) A clear, consistent struggle from below by the minority, for whom it was important to end racism and racial discrimination. They had the will to resist the majority, cohesion, self-sacrifice, leaders.

    2) Clear political will “from above”. Ending racial discrimination was a political decision of the country's leadership.�

    The first plus the second together and allowed to change the mood of the minds of the majority.�

    People-animals in the mass are social and conformal. In general, all this is well described in textbooks of social psychology: and the Frenchman Serge Moscovici, who just worked on the topic of how a minority can influence an unfriendly majority and change the situation. And in the textbooks of American social psychologists.

    I think this is the answer to your question.

    When one stick and nine holes destroy an entire army – when the king bares his head and you are left with your hat on… – When those who care about it will fight like Negroes, and at the top there will be people with a clear political will to break the request for authoritarianism.

    God knows when that will happen. Not in my lifetime, I think, unfortunately. But we're not freaks. Sooner or later.

  2. A very peculiar question is put: “There is an opinion that authoritarianism in Russia is because the population does not have a request for freedom. How do I create it?” It resembles the manner of the ancient sophists: like the question – ” have you stopped beating your father?”. If you answer “yes”, it means that you have beaten before; if” no”, it means that you continue to beat. Although I've never actually laid a finger on it. This is because the question itself implicitly contains a false statement. So it is in this case: the real answer is that there is no authoritarianism in Russia, and the” request for freedom ” among people is no less than in any other country. For there are no peoples “more freedom-loving” or “less freedom-loving”, just like people – all are equally equal in their human dignity. In which chamber of weights and measures is the standard of democracy kept, compared with which the verdict of “authoritarianism”is passed? There is no such standard, and there is no such chamber. Therefore, there are no “guardians of the standard”. And if they suddenly appear, then their place is in another chamber-next to the Napoleons, Alexander the Great and other “exceptionally exceptional”ones. Freedom is an opportunity and ability to be yourself. We have both. It remains only to fully realize that there are no ready-made universal patterns in the world, according to which it would be possible to shape your own destiny. And about “there is an opinion that there is authoritarianism in Russia.”.. Yes, let it exist. That's what opinions are for: what seems to someone, then that is imagined – to the truth of opinions is far from it. This was known even to the ancient Greek philosophers. And it will never be outdated.

  3. To begin with, the statement itself is controversial, as is any inappropriate generalization. What is a “population”? Are we the “population” or not? It's the same with “freedom” — which particular freedoms?

    Political systems do not consist of the fact that one big abstract “society” wants some kind of abstract “freedom”that means something that is not clear. This happens in history, the French are an example of this, but they are also an example of how this non-pragmatic idealism always ends: terror and restoration, and again on the same rake until they get smarter.

    Everything is made up of the struggle for private needs. I need something, I unite with others — those who also need it. If our requirements conflict with someone else, they are also combined. So, step by step, everything adds up. And yes, it's a long process. It can be accelerated: for example, if a nation has a strong class of intellectuals, and they listen to them, some stages can occur very quickly. For example, the fight for the rights of sex minorities in the United States took much less time than the race issue. Back in the 90s, an employee could be fired for being gay and sentenced to court proceedings, and in the late noughties this was already unthinkable.

    So don't complain and ask questions about bad people. You need to ask yourself questions. For example, “why can't I unite with my neighbors and defend the improvement of the yard?” Or “why motorists can easily join forces, but pedestrians can't.” These are the basics, after which more complex questions come by themselves. The main thing is to think of them yourself, and not repeat someone else's “right thoughts”.

  4. Russians have never lived differently! Princes, tsars, emperors, general secretaries. There was, however, one president under whom freedom reached almost permissiveness. But he was also quite authoritarian: he boldly shot the parliament building with tank cannons and dissolved the parliament itself. His liberal rule ended very sadly: the state went bankrupt and was on the verge of collapse, the war in the Caucasus did not subside.

    Can a country like Russia be governed by democratic methods? Perhaps the US experience confirms this. Will this provide benefits? In the short term – no, in the long term-it is possible.

    Do I need to artificially create a request for freedom? I'm sure not! You need to grow up to freedoms. That's when your personality becomes unbearable to develop in a society where there are too many restrictions, then you need to expand your freedom.

  5. First, find out what freedom is missing. The well-known division into negative “freedom from” and positive “freedom for” helps here. The first is about ensuring that the state does not interfere (and in general no one interferes) with living as you want, the second is about the rights of a citizen, about the right to decide, together with others, the common affairs of the city and state.�

    The demand for” freedom from ” seems to be normal, but negative freedom and authoritarianism are often compatible and do not interfere with each other. In political science, there is a special term “dictablanda” (“soft dictatorship”) for an authoritarian regime that does not allow citizens to enter politics, suppresses the opposition, but does not restrict liberal “freedom from” in private life. Civil “freedom for”, on the contrary, is the opposite of authoritarianism, it conflicts with it, and it makes sense to discuss the request for it.

    Who can create such a request: the state itself is most successful, mostly “from the opposite”. Corruption, unfair courts, ineffective police, unfair elections-all of them generate, almost every day, visual cautionary tales that explain to people that something is wrong with public power and it is necessary to intervene. When such stories involve personal interest (a thuggish management company in the house, illegal construction in the yard / area, a polyclinic is closed, etc.), they teach even more convincingly.�

    What else can help and how. Success stories of how someone managed to solve an important common problem, either last month in a neighboring city, or in another country twenty years ago. Tips and instructions on “how to do it”, contacts, who and where deals with the same problems or at least also discusses them-this creates the feeling that “we are not alone”, that problems can be solved and injustice can be dealt with.

  6. The demand for freedom arises when freedom is necessary, and it is necessary only for a political nation. It is a political nation, with a high level of political culture, civil society, local self-government and other pleasant words for the ear. Today's situation is such that the Russian political nation is at the stage of development of a 16-year-old teenager. He has a lot of relatives – his father, uncles, just adult friends of dad, who tell him what this child needs to do. My father, for example, talks about the need to protect national interests in a distant country. My uncle says that there are bad friends who use the US currency and they are bad, you can't be friends with them.

    So, the bottom line is that when the Russian political nation begins to decide for itself what to do and who to be friends with, then the request for freedom, as the only correct condition for its own development, will be realized.

    Something like this

  7. By means of advertising, of course. Most people (~85% is the standard share) don't know what they want. In order for them to know what they really want, they need to explain what they want, and then they will know what they want. They've been touted for stability and getting up from their knees for ten years, and now they know what they want – stability and getting up from their knees. If you advertise freedom for at least one year, they will know that they want freedom. Everything is simple.

    PS And! If you don't like the word “advertising”, then you can replace it everywhere with the word “propaganda” – these are synonyms.

Leave a Reply