Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
First of all, liberalism is an unknown beast for our people. Consequently, people are wary of it. Misunderstanding of the concept and term itself.
Secondly. We have no examples of successful liberalism. Distorted and perverted is, but in its pure form, no one has seen the manifestations of liberalism at least in some area.�
Thirdly. Liberalism is the opposite of the current system. That is, liberalism from the point of view of current politicians is something that needs to be destroyed in the bud. As a result, liberalism is discredited, meaning is deliberately distorted, and “facts” are juggled in such a way as to expose liberalism as evil on a universal scale. People, in turn, are very good at eating all this and then composing the stories themselves.
It's not that people don't like liberalism. They simply don't know him, and they've never seen him. It is not liberalism itself that they dislike, but the distorted image that is only in their heads.
By the way, there was a question here at one time saying why liberalism promotes permissiveness, drugs, debauchery(I won't quote it exactly, but the essence is something like this). A very vivid example of a complete misunderstanding of liberalism.
I've already seen a lot of such questions – and there is always a counter-question. How do you know that Russians don't like it? To confirm this, we need to hold, for example, fair elections with the admission of liberals to television… Have you ever seen this before?
I believe that this formulation of the question is incorrect, since it presumes that the idea of liberalism is not liked by the “mass population of Russia”, which is at least controversial.
Liberal views are held mainly by people who are opposed to the current government. Accordingly, the authorities in search of internal and external enemies found them in liberals and liberal ideas. And then the brains of the “mass population of Russia” began to be processed by such masters of propaganda as Solovyov and Kiselyov, as well as various “specialists” of a lower rank. In fact, the same stigmatization that took place in the 90s in relation to the term “democracy” and “democrats” works (I leave the discussion of the reasons out of brackets). The “Democrats” were replaced by liberals.�
In reality, I am sure that the mass population of Russia has an extremely vague idea of the ideas of liberalism. The fact that liberalism proclaims the priority of human rights and freedoms, freedom of speech, conscience, the press, inviolability of private property, freedom of entrepreneurship, free elections, the rule of law over the will of rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of wealth and position – this state propaganda will not tell. Are these ideas alien to the “mass population of Russia”? Don't insult the Russian people.
Dear Vasily,
Counter-question: does a person live for himself or for others?
There is a contradiction here: if you live for yourself, then others don't like it. If you live for others, forgetting about yourself, your children, your family-you look like an oddball.
Liberalism, as I understand it, is living for yourself. Who might like this idea? Only to the same assholes. That is why this idea is not accepted in Russia.
And in the USSR, people lived “for others”. They helped underdeveloped countries, got drunk at work, forgetting about their children and family. Therefore, the children grew up incomplete, often indifferent to the ideas of their mothers and fathers.
The solution to the contradiction is in measure. As my mother used to say, you should know your limits in everything!
But no one teaches you to understand the measure anywhere. That's how it turns out that some are slipping into liberalism, others into socialism.
The contradiction is resolved in Communism. Just not in the fact that he was supposedly in the USSR. There was a crooked model of the idea of the first Real Communists K. Marx and F. Schulz.Engels.
The goal of Communism is “the free development of everyone as a condition for the free development of all”!
In other words, the better you develop by helping others and sharing your results with them, the better they develop as well.
Don't think that I am a communist, or a propagandist of communism. I am engaged in forecasting the development of society. And I see – regardless of the authorities of various kinds! – the world is slowly moving towards Communism.
As if some cranks did not like it)).
I hope I helped you with my answer.
If not, please ask more precisely. If So, help others who are still dark. Thus interacting we will move FORWARD TOGETHER!
Smart Decisions!
Why do so many people really think so?
I think that if Russian liberals want to get something, they should first of all think about presenting themselves in the minds of the majority of the country's population. They should get a re-position in the eyes of a large part of society.�
Meanwhile, at the moment, many liberals who truly love their country and want change are carrying a large backpack with labels that they personally have nothing to do with.
…why don't you like it?
Why don't you like it?
I really like it.
Idea.
Although in fact, the idea of liberalism does not appeal to anyone.
Except for Russians, yes.
We like it because you can drink to it.
And we'll have a drink.
And then we'll have another drink, because the first one didn't help.
And smoke, yes. Because you can't drink all the time.
Although we have not yet drunk to those liberals who were real liberals and therefore died proudly… not having had time to say or finish. But we'll still drink to them (when we finish smoking) – and to the fact that they still tried. Someone has to.
A drink, yes.
And besides us … and-K…
Thank you for trying.
….
Why do I say that the idea of liberalism doesn't really appeal to anyone (who doesn't drink)?
Because it's true.
Well, look for yourself. Even the liberals themselves don't like it (who are still alive and therefore not real, but they are what they are). It seems that you say simple words, nothing concrete, everything for everyone's sake, just so that everyone has everything – freedom, rights, property, personal life, protection of the state, protection from the state, good neighbors, money, what to buy with this money, and to choose – in short, you sow reasonable, kind, eternal things, and without any violence – and you can still be killed. Not even finished listening. For what?..
Still understandable, if you listened to the rest of it. That nothing special (such as a revolution) should be done, everything seems to be already there, because from God or from nature, it remains only to relax and have fun – not everyone likes this option-but no, no one hears this anymore.
Liberals are not fools (otherwise what ideas). They understand that if they are suddenly wetted in the toilet or not allowed to reach it, something is wrong.
Therefore, all living liberals (or liberals+) do not even think about the idea of liberalism in its pure form. You never know. They add something of their own to the idea (again, because they are not fools). Not just for safety's sake; sometimes for principle's sake. To have something to suffer for, at least.
If someone thinks this is stupid, they are entitled to an opinion. And let this opinion stick itself in … wherever it wants (I'm not a liberal, I can).
…
And if there's something wrong with the idea, even if it's not clear what it is, there's still something wrong with it. This is clear enough.
And hedgehogs, as you know, live not only in Russia. And even though they don't know the words and can't talk, they usually get their message across easily.
Therefore, no idea of liberalism “in its pure form” has existed for a long time. Everyone who thought of her died. Some of them are dying and waiting for the future, but that's not the point.
And those who remain, think out it, put patches on it and amend the Constitution.
God forbid, I'm not talking about ours. Although it is the most liberal, which is no secret… it started many centuries ago. Even when liberalism itself did not exist. Why, Plato also claimed that this idea would never really reach us. He was a clever man, and may he always be remembered…
Here's a simple question. Has this idea (which is true in itself, and therefore does not even require proof) ever been “put into practice”? At least somewhere. At least by someone, in a single act. Well, yes, it's a catch. Even two. First, if we understand Plato's ideas, this can never happen. And we can't even test it (we should at least know the idea). Secondly, we can't check someone else's practice. Let's say that some Sakharov honestly tries his best to implement the idea of liberalism at every step (to the podium), but at least we don't care, because we know something different about it. Tsunami-controlled bombs are no bigger than your America – what the hell is liberalism?
I like the idea, any Russian is a born liberal.
I don't like it when we spend hundreds of years building something and then they come and break it. It just so happened that the liberals were the last ones to break it. And before that, there were the Nazis, and we also had a good time with them. Although I don't think we have anything against the ideas of nationalism and socialism either, and we even successfully implement them ourselves whenever possible.
The most interesting thing – no, not a stranger, and especially to the masses, but the masses do not know exactly what liberalism is and who liberals are – since liberals are constantly called from TV such freaks as Chubais and Kiriyenko, for example (the list is impressive). The problem is that they are not liberals, but first-and second-wave kleptocrats, respectively. But if you call them that, thinking citizens (and we still have plenty of them) will perfectly understand that those very kleptocrats brought Putin to power (the second wave), and the entire current codla – which is already in the third wave. It is much easier to find a couple of scapegoats for controlled media among your own – Zhirik has been playing the role of a palace buffoon for thirty years, and nothing.
A person who was born and lived in prison, after being released by will, will not be confused. Everything will not be clear to him, it will be scary, it will not be right. He will often feel nostalgic, bored, and remember that ” at that time in prison there was compote and a plate full of beans!” He will even want to go back to prison, to his homeland, to the rules that are clear and fair for him. Similarly, post-Soviet people treat liberal ideas as extra-prison concepts that are alien to them.
Why don't you like it? I really like liberalism. But it is not represented in any way in the political environment (only by names that do not convey the essence), so I have no choice. We have the most liberal politician in terms of statements (sorry not on business) looks like Putin, I don't want to choose Putin. We, consistent supporters of legal liberalism, are sitting in the palace, sad, we do not have a political leader.
Because liberalism is the most blackened concept that covers the Russian media.
For those in power, the tenets of liberalism are simply unprofitable.
People do not want to understand the concepts of “democracy” and “liberalism”, they think what the TV dictates to them
I will say right away that I am not a supporter of liberalism, but at the same time, I think I will not be mistaken if I say that true liberalism can please absolutely everyone.
As a liberal advocate recently told me:
“<Liberalism> declares that:
In exercising their rights and freedoms, everyone should be subject only to such restrictions as are established by law solely for the purpose of ensuring due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”
And also:
“Liberalism assumes that people, being interested in personal gain, will follow each other, because it is not profitable for anyone to let others break the established rules.”
This is how he explained to me why liberalism allows the absence of certain legislative acts aimed at additional regulation of capital flows.
Yes, this is still a fairly fair attitude, but it is, unfortunately, somewhat naive. It is just as naive as the principles of true communism, which also presuppose universal freedom, equality and fraternity within a single class of working people. With the difference from liberalism that all private means of production are voluntarily and, I emphasize, altruistically transferred to the full management of society (communes). At the same time, it was assumed, not without reason, that the transferred property would serve society much more effectively than private property, since in this way it was guaranteed that the profits would not be spent on individual shares, bonds, villas, yachts, “priceless” pictures, Courchevel whores and other “Chelsea”, but invested in real production that benefits the entire population.
That is, true liberalism can not fail to please you in any way.
But there are a couple of “small “”buts” in relation to Russia:
Russia at the current stage of development is not fully ready to economically accept the free liberal market, but, nevertheless, our “advanced” top economic leadership, following the recommendations of the WTO and the IMF (that is, in fact, the recommendations of the anti-Russian West), is trying its best to drive the country there – that is, for a long time it refused protectionism, did not regulate capital outflows, indulged offshore companies, etc. I really hope that this trend will stop in the near future – it seems that some progress has begun. Let's hope that they will be sufficient.
The Russian liberal opposition is being used by our sworn foreign ” partners “as a weapon directed against Russia itself and serving not to promote truly liberal views, but to remove the current pro-Russian president and put in his place their pro-Western puppets, the so-called”liberalists”. All this is done in order to prevent the Russian Federation from becoming one of the world leaders and spreading “Our Democracy”.
These are the main reasons why liberalism will not take root in Russia in the near future.
What idea do Russians like? The Communists offered a good solution with socialism, but the Russians managed to get into this saucer with a golden border, choosing 200 varieties of sausage and clothes with Cola. We did, but the subsequent “- isms ” were no better. It turned out that what was written and shown in the Soviet media about the West is all true! And then all the Western “- isms ” became objectionable. What is the reason? I think that the reason is not so much in the people as in the governing elite. As much as the top is rotten, so the next “- ism ” will be bad. Let me remind you that socialism allowed us to restore the convertibility of the ruble in a decade after winning the civil war, which the current ones have been struggling with for some decade. So with education, so with industry, etc. That is, in the management of the state there were people who could do and lead. Now I'm not even sure that someone will follow the current top in the next Second World War. Who should I follow? Who should I protect? The tsar, his friends?
Because it's all ours, not yours. Popular, national. Therefore, we are for self-government. And for the market. But all this should be regulated. The market, politics, economy, and government must all be manageable. Chaos is disastrous for any system
I've already answered a similar question here.
In short, according to my observations, even without knowing the term itself and its meaning, they instinctively begin to feel some kind of threat to their way of life as soon as you begin to explain this meaning to them.
The real liberalism in Russia was in the mid-to late 19th century. When a small part of the enlightened citizens have settled down to their position, looking at how the ancestral aristocracy in their person robs the serfs. This liberalism flourished most after 1861. When the peasants were robbed quite openly and brazenly. And it was called ” going to the people.” Modern liberalism is a profanity. A tool for forming public opinion by the opposition bourgeois elite to the current government. What are liberal values? Freedom of speech, human rights. So, do we have someone being tortured in dungeons without a trial? Or do they deprive you of your freedom of speech? That's why they're shouting about it on every street corner. A thinking person understands this perfectly. Moreover, there is a fresh example of winning liberalism in Ukraine.
For a combination of reasons:
1. the ideas of liberalism are not perfect, and since the Russian person was brought up an idealist, then only something utopian, mystical, and not rational can suit him.
2. In the liberal world and its paradigm, Russia has lost in the struggle of ideas and is assigned the role of a loser. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, this aspect was not in the foreground, but over time it became more and more acute. In 1992, the Free Press published an article by Francis Fukuyama entitled The End of History, where the author made a confident, decisive statement that the ideological struggle is over,and the United States, with its liberal values, has won this confrontation.�
Well, since the Russians do not give up and are used to seeing themselves as players of the first roles, this situation seemed unacceptable to them and they began to look for new reasons and techniques for ideological struggle with the West. “we are the victors, liberators of the world from Nazism and all that..No second roles” That is why such an emphasis in recent years has been placed on the Victory over fascism – they have made a whole Cult out of it. And all in order to overshadow the defeat in the third war, shouting at all corners about the Victory in the Second. It looks silly, of course.
Why don't you like it? No one objects to the fact that every person has certain rights. This idea is quite accepted by the overwhelming majority.
Another thing is that modern “liberals” promote a different idea: a person should not have responsibilities. This idea is not widely supported. And that's a good thing.
Because even after the collapse of the totalitarian socialist regime of the USSR, people continue to live by inertia in captivity of Soviet ideological cliches. You just need to open an encyclopedia and read about classical liberalism (not to be confused with modern leftist social liberalism).
You will answer this question yourself as soon as you formulate the ideas, there are several of them, of this ideology of masterly servitude, and the essence of us Russians. There are phenomena/objects and subjects that are not superimposed on each other. Like a muzzle on a person. How liberalismideas of freedom for the chosen in inequality affect us.
Liberalism has long and completely discredited itself. What is called liberalism in Western countries is a real dictatorship, when a person is simply slandered for criticizing the ideas of liberalism. Try to criticize sex minorities in the West and a person is subjected to such defamation that he can lose his job, career and reputation. Is this freedom of speech and the right to personal opinion?
Try to criticize any liberal values and your opinion will be trampled on. And the proponents of modern liberalism are not carriers of liberal values, but bearers of dictating and imposing these values on everyone, including other countries where some of these values have historically been detested. And they impose it with the help of laws, and then assert the priority of law. They say this is the law and you must comply with it.
Liberalism is suitable for countries where the individualist mentality is developed. In Russia, the mentality is different, the mentality of collectivism. In China, collectivism is even more developed than in Russia, so liberalism will not take root there either. Russian people have historically lived as a community, and the Soviet period cemented this. Russian people want a strong leader who would take care of them, a father leader who would think for them, decide what to do, what to wear, what to sing, what to watch… For a person of collective consciousness, the main thing is that the neighbor does not live better than him, then everything suits him, everything is clear and stable.
Because liberalism is perceived as a” dashing 90 ” (wrongly), and conservatism is associated (served) as a “great empire” with corresponding ambitions. In essence, the “Russian man” strives for a great, strategic goal and is ready to sacrifice momentary comfort in order to achieve this goal (so I think). The authorities naturally abuse this and turn this state of affairs purely into self-interest and total fooling of the population, such as “we will lead you to a bright future” or “don't rock the boat with your desire, think about the goal (Syria, Crimea, USA, Ukraine).” It is sad to realize that society has made a 180-degree turn in its historical path .
Question from the series-have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning???)))
First of all, it's not a fact that you don't like it at all – Russians didn't have the opportunity to find out what it is, and the “liberalism” sung by the Kiselyovs and Solovyovs is far from the original…
Secondly, we have a liberal-democratic party that has nothing to do with either liberalism or democracy, and a communist party with communism – the Russians were deliberately confused in terms…
Thirdly, they pour shit from the central TV channels every day, distracting them with anything, just so they don't think why they have someone else's hand in their pocket… which doesn't want to put money there at all, rather the opposite
Fourth, all sorts of Olginsky trolls who create illusions of “national love for Pu” on the Internet…
Fifth, “competent” surveys of sociologists who check the quality of TV operation))))
Etc. etc.�
Russians don't like being taken for idiots… and now even competent “polls” show a desire for change exceeding the desire to leave everything as it is… Maybe they like the idea of liberalism?
I think that many Russians (in their right mind) actually support liberal ideas. They just call it something else-probably “common sense.”
As has been said more than once in the answers to this question, in Russia the concept of “liberalism” has been replaced by the concept of “liberalism +”. In the eyes of the general public, liberalism is firmly associated with homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, migrants, and so on – with debauchery and corruption in society. Plus, the erroneous association of liberalism with the Yeltsin regime adds to the negative – also, by the way, a narrative created by the authorities.
In fact, liberalism, first of all, is the rule of law over all citizens, including government representatives. This is a clear division of power between the three branches, enshrined in the Constitution. This is the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens – not only the freedom to choose sexual preferences (which is emphasized in Russia), but also the right to property, freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
In total, it is not liberalism itself that Russians dislike, but what they are being sold as liberalism. However, the negative attitude towards liberalism in Russia is also to blame for the political parties that have finally accepted the government's promoted line regarding this ideology. Everyone is debating whether the rights of sexual minorities are a good thing or a bad thing; although, the correct question would be why do we even discuss sexual minorities in the context of liberalism, if this is far from the first priority issue? Blame, of course, and the people themselves-because you can not be a vegetable in the garden.
Russians like liberalism. All, without exception, existing Russian nationalist movements and organizations are radically liberal. Much more radical than the liberal children of Arbat on duty. On the contrary, all the “conservative”, “left”, “for the USSR”, “Orthodox”, “national” butts end up with national, Soviet and FSB provocateurs and crooks. Starting with Dugin's Soviet major and ending with the fsbshnik Girken.
They don't like liberalism, but liberals. Not for what ideology they adhere to, but for their belligerent attitude towards the government elected by the majority. The mass population, as you said, hardly knows even the basics of liberalism, but they know for sure that liberals are against Putin. And if the mass population is for Putin, then it is logical that it will be against the liberals.