> But it takes millions to create such movements
Such movements are harder to take root in cultures that empower the individual and limit the authority of those in power to direct the lives of millions.
Such movements are harder to take root in cultures that empower the individual and limit the authority of those in power to direct the lives of millions.
Realistically the struggle between liberal ideals and more instinctual authoritarian leanings is an ongoing process that turns up in every country. The issue is that Russia looks like what happens when the authoritarians just get too much power. The thing that is baffling is that despite the effectively inevitable outcome that more liberalism leads to better outcome there is no talking people down from taking authoritarian stances on nearly every policy area.
Just through a random wikipedia list, I found Oppenheimer (if not an outright member of the communist party, very closely aligned) and Needham (who had agreed to be an Inspector in North Korea).
(I find it funny this is one of the two posts from this account, 50 rubles is 50 rubles I suppose?)
Those cultures have even less resistance for when a totalitarian power center emerges, as society is already broken down into people separated from each other, and unable to see eye to eye. Such a people is the easiest to break down.
And even without a central totalitarian figurehead, people without wider social binds to aid them and work together, are powerless individuals, and as such are bowing down every day to whatever bigger power they meet: to politicians, to corporate power, to billionaire moguls who set the terms and own their media, to a byzantine legal system, and of course to their bosses.
The moral choices came with a very high personal cost.
There is a quote from the book _three men on a bummel_ written in 1900 wherein one of the characters states that he could take over Germany simply by putting up the correct signage as Germans followed all the rules; even their dogs would not walk on the grass signed "do not walk".
A lot of reports and surveys about "level of individualism in country XYZ" use "individualistic" to mean the opposite of "driven by extended family relationships". This is a very misleading way of using the term "individualism". A more accurate term would be "anti-nepotistic". German culture is certainly less nepotistic than the average for the world or even for Western Europe -- but to describe this as individualism is extremely inaccurate.
Germany when ww1 came around was not old, it was a small militaristic kingdom glueing together half diggested bits of in between empire countries, wedged between eternal giants of France, Britain, Russia, Austria Hungary. To life in in between country is to know what the great game is all about, it's about painting on a map, so that the real, the capital city people can have a nice life, while in between country folks serves as disposables for taxing, torturing and throwing out of cellar windows. evil is gestated and caricature like evil is gestated in caricature like circumstances. The modern left is unable to perform this kind of analysis any more, but the nazis were a afterbirth of imperialism and nobody can prevent this from returning without understanding of the conditions that gave birth to this.