Re: Why did the USSR fall?

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

 "Chris Doss" writes: 
> This is an excellent point, but I have a hard time seeing how 
> Putin embodies an individualistic ideology. Could you explain?
> 
> I think it's very easy to see why people support Putin: 
> mainly, they are voting with their pocketbooks. There has 
> been a one-third drop in poverty in the last four years. Not 
> to mention that the oligarchs are terrified. Also, the KPRF 
> has been largely discredited, and everybody hates the liberal 
> parties because of their association with teh Yeltsin era.

"voting with their pocketbooks" is part of what I'm saying. Also, isolated people tend to vote for the allegedly "good father" (the man on the white horse) who will protect them from disorder, crime, terrorism, etc., even if it involves voting for a corrupt and repressive government.
Jim D. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:55:07 -0700
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why did the USSR fall?
> 
> > If I'm not mistaken, Ted is referring to the problem of the 
> expression of public opinion through plebiscites. If people 
> are isolated, having few or no popular organizations that 
> allow popular discussion and self-education, people tend to 
> veer toward the most individualistic ideologies. In 
> 19th-century France, people voted for Napoleon III in 
> plebiscites not because it expressed their long-term, 
> collective, or class interest but because it expressed their 
> isolated, atomized, consciousness -- especially since there 
> was little choice on the ballot.
> >
> > Strictly speaking, the election of Putin wasn't a 
> plebiscite, but it was pretty close in practice. Elections in 
> the US would be a lot like plebiscites except that there are 
> grass-roots organizations for both of the major political 
> parties. Polling results -- as opposed to, say, focus groups 
> -- are a lot like plebiscites.
> >
> > Rousseau seems to have suggested the problem with his 
> distinction between "the will of all" (a majority vote 
> expressing individual special interests) and "the general 
> will" (nowadays called "the public interest," based on the 
> shared interests of all individuals, after collective 
> discussion, etc.) Unfortunately, he never figured out how to 
> reconcile these in a meaningful way. (He hoped that an 
> all-wise Legislator could do the job.)
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ted Winslow [mailto:egwinslow@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:03 AM
> > > To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why did the USSR fall?
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris Doss wrote:
> > >
> > > > People see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't.
> > >
> > > Earlier he wrote:
> > >
> > > > You were dissing the Russian public, something close to 
> my heart.
> > >
> > > As is true of the "US public" or the "Canadian public," 
> the "Russian
> > > public" must consist of differing types characterized  by 
> differing
> > > degrees of rational self-consciousness.  State power and economic
> > > organization are not  "suspended in the air"; they are internally
> > > related to this structure of self-consciousness.  The Bush
> > > administration, for instance, can be connected in this way to a
> > > particular kind of religious fundamentalism.  You 
> sometimes seem to
> > > idealize the "Russian public."
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> >
>