Howling in Unison: The Soviet Writers' Union
theamericanconservative.com
theamericanconservative.com
Nope, it wasn't much similar to woke culture, mainly because it was rather rigid top-down command hierarchy of values. The current brands of values and socialist morals were rationalized in the Central Committee, then propagated through Republics committees, then oblasts and regions down to town administrations into individual organizations, factories and schools (and sometimes police stations).
In other words it was very much the opposite direction. Now you can liken woke culture to mob rule (tho I think that'd be exaggerating) or whatever, point is it's nothing like the Soviet system.
Well, "organically". As all such things go, there were real problems affecting a lot of people, but once the movement to fix those problems gained steam, it got quickly leveraged and taken over by various political and economic groups around the world. In the turmoil that followed, one of the groups that co-opted the banner of the initial movement managed to take over Russia, and give birth to USSR.
The point being, USSR did not come out of the blue. What you want to compare the current social trends to is what Russia looked like in the decade prior to the October Revolution.
Agreed. We're not there yet, and perhaps (hopefully) we'll never be - that's why I alluded to the times before October Revolution, back when USSR itself didn't exist yet, but the culture that gave rise to it did.
> but maybe I’m mistaken and not able to notice a coordinated manipulation of public opinion by some hidden force. It smells of a conspiracy theory, though.
I'm not claiming that either. You're right - it would be a conspiracy theory. I don't believe there's any large-scale coordination at play. But I do believe in lots of small-scale coordination in fierce competition - another similarity to pre-revolution Russia. Much like back then (and always, in general), people aspiring for power and/or money try to get ahead on the platform of whatever is the most heated social issue. They co-opt the movement, adopt the banners, and compete against both the establishment / countermovers and other upstarts ostensibly on the same side. I think we can see this today, with how politicians, media and corporations get involved. It's not because they want to achieve the original goals of the movement - they want to use it to gain power and/or money.
I think the above is somewhat obvious and universal point - politics and economy seems to always work like this. The banners change; the behavior, not so much.
Thinking more about it, I see one similarity between current "culture war" and the USSR, which may be why 'Andrew_nenakhov compared the current situation to USSR, and not to Russia at the turn of XX century. Even in USSR, the censorship and behavior policing wasn't binary - either you're a Good Commie or on a train to a gulag. More commonly, if you weren't red enough, you would find yourself denied opportunities and dignity. Not in the Party? Your kid won't get into the university. Someone said you're not fully committed to the Fatherland? That job in the factory is not for you anymore. Oh, and your neighbors don't want to talk with you now - mostly because they're afraid to be tarnished by association. Yes, there was a lot of violence and torture and death involved in policing the citizens, but also a lot of such softer pressure. Perhaps even more of it in the Soviet satellite states.
Where it connects to the modern "culture war" is that the same social policing seems to be using the market instead of top-down state control. In the USSR, your foreman would kick you out because they're afraid of the head of local Party branch, who was afraid of their political officer, and so on, all the way to Stalin, in a top-down hierarchy of threat. Today, people fall in line because they're afraid of getting fired because of a Twitter mob; their employers are afraid of the Twitter mob causing the company to lose investors or market share.
This is a new factor. A distributed, stochastic, persistent threat. Arguably not possible before social media. There's no central coordination required, but the effects are as predictable as if there was an actual dictator on top of things.
But yeah, like then, some people are now acting out of fear (or the dreaded value signalling) and self-censoring, which is a sad similarity.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-entertainment-corona...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/america-ha...
Like, seriously? People being shamed into getting fired or quitting is the same thing as death to you?
Companies research a person's online activities to see if this person is going to be dangerous for their brand image.
This person can no longer find work.
Sure, it's not an execution, but how about you don't have a job for a few years. Lets see how cheery you'll be about it. In dialogues where lack of complete inclusion and split second micro-aggressions are enough to cause catastrophic mental harm to someone... being jobless is considered a backrub?
What the academic "elites" are trying to achieve is clear: The topics create work for the soft sciences and even after a potential revolution their jobs would be safe.
What the corporations are expecting is less clear. They are doing well under a model of capitalism with a woke branding.
A bit of what China is doing with its curious capitalism/nepotism branded as communism model, though I don't think that is exactly the goal of U.S. corporations.
They are doing fine with the current political theater. If the lower classes in the U.S. wake up to actual class warfare, they may find that they overplayed their hand though.
The market isn't unlike a heat engine - if there is a heat difference somewhere, it means there's energy to be extracted equilibrizing that difference. Corporations don't really care about what ideologies are in conflict in the society - they align themselves along the best value gradient and pump it for all it's worth.
In this particular case: lots of people respond to woke ideas, and those people tend to control important marketing amplifiers (Internet media), so being seen as woke is a profitable strategy. For the same reason, you also see a lot of environmental awareness undertones in marketing these days - people who care about it respond to it positively, people who don't care just ignore it, so it's a profitable move to be seen as environmentally conscious.
The same game was practiced since French Revolution, it's nothing new and I'm sure as hell it wasn't invented on the net. Following OP's analogies with Russosphere, it's much more like RSDLP (i.e. the pre-revolutionary loosely organized umbrella socialist party with a bunch of very different movements) than the late USSR they are talking about. Many people from RSDLP like Alexandra Kollontai would feel right at home today, for example.
It echoes Honeckers DDR. Neighbors and friends denouncing each other for minor transgressions. Some of it due to personal revenge, some of it to provide cover for their own shortcomings, some true believers.
Honecker did it for power and oppression. These people gleefully enlist voluntarily, attacking enemy and friends and each other to prove who the better dehumanized human is. Goddamit, it’s sad.
Does this happen often on Twitter?
Literally every example I've ever read about on Twitter is one of the following:
1. some poster completely unknown to the person in question-- either revealing content of old Tweets or aggressively responding to a recent utterance. Then that goes viral.
2. some victim of assault makes an accusation as a last ditch effort to stop a monster from continuing to assault victims.
I know plenty of examples of Facebook's instigation algo ripping at the seams of otherwise close-knit communities. But those are cases of a nasty divorce spilling out into public posts, or a political disagreement suddenly turning into, "Someone should burn so-and-so's house down!" Weird shit.
I've never witnessed any people who are friends or neighbors with each other attempt police each other's minor transgressions on Twitter.
But even when the first finder is a stranger, it's the people you know who have to do the damage. Some Twitter mob gets after your company to fire you. Only works if your boss, i.e. someone you know, folds to the mob. So in the end it's always friends and neighbors turning on each other.
Neighbors denouncing their black, Mexican, LGBTQ what have you neighbors. Then other neighbors denouncing the denouncers - this latter part seems to be where you start having a problem with it.
Incidentally, the US government surveils its citizen's phone calls etc. far more than the DDR under Honecker ever did.
This sounds quite relevant in 2020.
If you like dark absurdist humor, you’ll probably like his work. Here’s one example:
Because of her excessive curiosity, an old lady fell out of the window and smashed into the ground. Another old lady looked out of the window, staring down at the one who was smashed, but out of her excessive curiosity she also fell out of the window and smashed into the ground. Then the third old lady fell out of the window, then the fourth did, then the fifth. When the sixth old lady fell out of the window, I got bored watching them and went to Maltsev market where, they say, someone gave a woven shawl to a blind man.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040907075615/http://www.sevaj....
Don’t deviate from the narrative. I hope we catch ourselves before it’s too late.
People in apparatchik-driven open source projects anno 2021 should take note and draw the obvious parallels.
"Since the party line often shifted, one could find oneself accused of errors that, at the time they were made, were not errors at all. The party constantly invented new mistakes, whether in ideas, practices, or phrases, so that one could never free oneself from the risk of humiliation. One sign of this sort of shame culture is the constant creation of new offenses, usually applied retroactively. No matter how many times the cadre manages to overcome his, he must always overcome them yet again."
- we disagree with characterizing people as being "in power" in accordance with extremely imprecise identity groups
- we disagree with restructuring liberal society to be instead be focused on reparative justice in accordance with who has most competently argued on behalf of their identity group's victimization within society
- we disagree with constituting consensual economic relationships as abuse of power
- we disagree with the mechanisms by which and degree to which people should be "held to account"
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/22/magazine/labor-s-gamble-o...
Do those laborers include the Nicaraguans (or Americans like Ben Linder) who were massacred by the Contras Mondale advocated funding for so that they could overthrow Nicaragua's democratically elected government?