A human, when basic needs are at play, has no independent will anymore. Putin has his hand on the country, as long as he can make people believe he is the only solution to their prosperity.. their will will align with that. That's partly how he maintained his position it seems.
Definitely, but there still exist such "homo sovieticus" in other ex-USSR countries(Belarus,Ukraine,Transnistria,even Moldova --all decreasingly though--).You also see this kind of mentality even in some western countries, but I'll stop here since we're getting into touchy politics.
What's kind of funny is that long time ago Putin 'wanted' to distance himself from communism in order to not lose public support,though he always wanted to serve his own interests by carefully choosing his words, compared to someone like Yeltsin who arguably had more attempts at a more 'democratic' approach.
As far as I can tell, many countries with significant Russian populations have done really well in making the difference between Russian government and the Russian people, and how the war in Ukraine is a war of the former. Not to say that the support from the population within Russian Federation is small, but clearly there is a significant amount having doubts as to why. One can also see this manifest in how slow the advances have been thus far and how the morale in Russian forces appears to be low.
>plus the actions of a country’s leaders do not represent the entire will of the people
If the Russian people don't agree with war. They would show up in the capitals and shut down the country until this problem is resolved.
If they do not, then your claim that Putin doesn't represent the entire will of the people is wrong.
The subsequent poverty and isolation the Russian people are about to go through will mean the Russian people have all the reasons in the world to oppose the government. If they don't, then it just proves how much they support Putin.
> If the Russian people don't agree with war. They would show up in the capitals and shut down the country until this problem is resolved
After watching a video where Sergey Naryshkin, the director of russian foreign intelligence service, was visibly stuttering trying to find the right words to answer a simple question by Putin, hoping for his dear life that he didn't say something wrong, well, I'm not quite sure a reasonable person who cares about the life of their loved ones is going to risk it all. There wouldn't be dictators if it was easy to go to the streets and take it back.
>After watching a video where Sergey Naryshkin, the director of russian foreign intelligence service, was visibly stuttering trying to find the right words to answer a simple question by Putin, hoping for his dear life that he didn't say something wrong, well, I'm not quite sure a reasonable person who cares about the life of their loved ones is going to risk it all. There wouldn't be dictators if it was easy to go to the streets and take it back.
Yes I saw the same video. Putin surrounded himself with yesmen and propaganda. He most likely misled himself.
Also yes, it takes a strong people to stand up to their government. We saw many people in the middle east topple their governments during the arab spring.
Do you think the Russian people are strong enough to do the same? Idont.
Russia is an authoritarian state where open dissent with the government has repeatedly resulted in being imprisoned or assassinated. It's very easy to say "just go outside and hold a demonstration" from the comfort of a democracy, but I don't blame anyone for putting their own safety first even if they disagree with Putin's government.
>Russia is an authoritarian state where open dissent with the government has repeatedly resulted in being imprisoned or assassinated. It's very easy to say "just go outside and hold a demonstration" from the comfort of a democracy, but I don't blame anyone for putting their own safety first even if they disagree with Putin's government.
If 50% of the populace hits the streets. The police are literally incapable of doing anything. Yes, they could even spark a civil war, but the alternative is the ongoing disaster of Russia.
> If they don't, then it just proves how much they support Putin.
Strong disagree. The Russian people are victims of their government too, held at gunpoint from expressing their opinions freely. A sufficiently large crowd might be able to storm the institutions of government, but a lot of people would have to be at the front of that crowd, literally in the firing line.
>Strong disagree. The Russian people are victims of their government too, held at gunpoint from expressing their opinions freely. A sufficiently large crowd might be able to storm the institutions of government, but a lot of people would have to be at the front of that crowd, literally in the firing line.
If they are victims, they will stand up against Putin. If they are not victims, they will not.
The world just has to sit back and watch as the Russian people collapse.
This war is probably costing around $25 billion a day before sanctions. With sanctions? Russia is no longer on the world stage.
You know who owns significant amounts of Chinese land? Russia. China hates Russia. Is China about to declare war on Russia to take their land back?
If China moved into Ukraine to fight the Russians at the same time as taking Manchuria back. Absolutely nobody will hear about vladivostock falling as the world applauds China. However, Russia was smart, they announced their 'no limit' alliance with china immediately before this invasion.
Was china aware russia was using them to invade ukraine? Or were they only told about the 2 republics? Why did china rush to tell russia to get to peace talks? Why did Russia slap them in the face and say no?
> the modern russian has traits of a soviet but is a different person
Is this even a meaningful statement? If you took a Soviet professor of physics in a big Moscow university and a Soviet grocery shop cashier in a small Russian town, would you find common traits among them that would at the same time set them apart from a professor of physics in a Finnish university or a Chinese shop assistant?
Personally I prefer geostrategic determinism over kitchen sink sociology.
"From the Russian point of view, creating a sphere of influence that would return Russia to its relatively defensible imperial boundaries is imperative."
I know they have connections to the Western intelligence agencies but if you’re ever looking for a facts based analysis of a geopolitical situation, their reports are very good - dry, but highly detailed and often provide a lot of historical context for how the present situation arose.
Not unbiased, but I guarantee you’ll learn something.
Really? The reports about the issues I intimately know are superficial and laughable. A mixture of newspaper clippings, geopolitical fanfic and macro statistics only aim to reassure the biases of the authors.
Let's step back from these geopolitical speculations for a while and ask: why would any European country invade Russia in any foreseeable future? It's the 21st century, Western Europe has its own problems, barely any army and Russia has nuclear weapons capable of wiping out humankind from the earth. It's real life, not some Paradox Interactive game. I mean, even in times when such invasion could have made more sense, Napoleon's France and Nazi Germany tried, and they both failed miserably. I simply don't understand Russian concerns and I think about them as cheap excuses for enslaving and killing innocent people.
I'm no geopolitical expert, but the economic concerns are there. Ukraine is a 'breadbasket', if they were to join the EU's common market (with export tarrifs) then presumably Russians would face rising food costs.
The motivation to keep Ukraine in Russia's military sphere probably has as much to do with economics as anything else.
It's an interesting question but it also show something about international relationships now. Russia seems to get stuck in military control of resources while other countries are more fluid and want threat-free negotiations.
Now I could be wrong and maybe there are a lot of strings being pulled in disguise.
Yes, because we all know what happens when the most competent nations try to topple regimes the cheap way with the help of The Company and its friends like say '53 in Teheran.
In the end you have paranoid rulers that try to secure their position under all circumstances with secret police and else fun stuff.
Which then causes riots and revolutions as a reaction.
And the trouble you have then for decades, which is again advantageous for others, of course.
I'm not saying the economic motivations justify the invasion. I'm saying the economic motivations make more sense to me as the root cause of the invasion compared to military reasons.
As a German I do understand cheap excuses for enslaving and killing innocent people quite good.
Especially Russians.
There is good reason for Lord Ismay's saying about NATO:
'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'
Actually I'm glad about that Americans thing, because of that Germans thing.
Not because of that Russians thing.
But as I said, I'm a geostrategic determinist.
You just can't be sure, your life and hopes die from one day to the other.
Just ask the Ukrainians, the Afghans or half of the middle east from 2003 onwards.
Oh, just in case you are US-American.
Congratulation, everything you need and could wish for you have on your continent, including nukes and cheap labour from the south.
You don't need anybody else, they need you at most.
And there weren't many Invasions on the US, were there?
Of course they're maniacally obsessed with their paltry Civil War.
Ridiculous.
Must be something they really fear.There you have your kitchen sink psychology.
Which brings me back to the mess with Russia.
This is their last attempt for a long, long time.
Their demographics works against them.Their population is shrinking and ageing.
So is the German one.
But the Germans were pampered by the US after WWII because of the Soviet Union.
Supervised and pampererd.
The Russians were just left aside as losers and geostrategical bystanders after Soviet collapse.
Now it's their endgame.
I have also been reading about the American civil war. Even I initially thought it was a small war that barely killed anyone. But losing 2% of your population seems significant, especially given that it was a local affair.
The American Civil War was in some ways the prelude to WWI in terms of introducing the kind of mass-slaughter battles enabled by increasingly industrialized firepower. There were some very brutal engagements, Gettysburg being the most famous.
Imagine if Gatling had invented his multi-barreled, rotary rifle a few years earlier.
Too bad his sales reps couldn't demonstrate its usefullness and superiority sooner.
Say, used by the National Guard against striking miners in Pittsburgh or something.
Enough of them in Unionist hands and Ghettysburg would have been over in a few hours instead of three days.
And so would the ACW.
Dixie's young and upright wheat mowed down in hours.
A grand metapher for the Union victory.
And industrialism, of course.
Now perhaps you understand why the Russians are a little bit obsessed about their losses at our last tour to Moscow.
I already said, their history breeds and select paranoia.
So to say, they lived Grove's Motto long ago, only the paranoid survive.
And I, as a Polish person, should be especially aware of the importance of geopolitics. Personally, I've been lucky enough to live in a fully sovereign Poland for my whole life but that is something that was a pipe dream for all my ancestors for the last 200 years mostly due to our geographic position between major European powers - so well, geopolitics.
The thing is, I thought these dark times when people are sent to kill each other to redraw some arbitrary lines on the map are long gone, together with its apologists.
Sorry to say that, but welcome back to Hotel California.
Ah, and I'm just a messenger, and would prefer not to be shot.
I don't defend anything, I'm looking for an exit.
This, very much this. The centrists here in this situation are really making idiots of themselves. Russia is under no threat from NATO or anyone else on the planet with respect to its integrity or even its foreign interests.
It's meaning seems to vary with the country, which could be an indication of geostrategic determinism and I highly suspect it's a dirty word among extremists.
NATO is historically and inherently an anti-Russian alliance. It has been since it's inception. In 90's and 00's Russia has made multiple advancements towards joining NATO, but was dismissed, reassuring the worst fears among Russian military branch of government, that they wouldn't be seen as allies.
You should bear in mind that countries are not persons. And their alliances are not mere "friendships". They are slowly moving clumsy structures and the alliances are constraints.
All that is happening today has been predicted long ago and now we are simply "enjoying" the consequences of a long trail of politicians' failures. Politicians that favored short-term populism over long-term global stability, failing to set a vector for these structures that would result in mutual benefit, rather than an expected confrontation.
Nukes were present in 1990, there was no opportunity.
Just to clarify, I'm not from Russia, neither I support this war. But I don't think that West is innocent and wouldn't take a chance to destroy Russia at the first possibility.
By destroying I don't necessary mean physical destruction. Disarming, separate regions into different countries (divide and conquer), convert those into little harmless countries depending on West with everything. That still destruction in my book.
>>Nukes were present in 1990, there was no opportunity.
Yes, but doesn't that imply, today also nobody can 'strangulate' Russia?
The Russians were weaker then, why would the West do it now, when the Russians are stronger and there are still the nukes that prevented it back then?
We don't hate you. Actually we would love to see Russia move forward and Russian people improve their lives. We are great-full that Russia stopped the Nazis in WWII and we don't want to worry about having the world blown up. See how Germany was able to come ahead after being really hated. The world needs Russia. We worry about the Russian oligarchs. They stay in power making the people believe that the west hates Russia. We don't. We love Russia.
I don't see anything distinctly Soviet about it other than them coining the term. The description seems like a very good fit for various swaths of western demographics. When people grow up surrounded by "you're part of a machine/system" ideologies they tend to exhibit these qualities regardless of whether the machine is portrayed as good (for all their faults, the USSR did try had to convince people they were part of something meaningful), neutral or evil.
It's true, it exists everywhere but at much smaller scale. Societies have developed mechanisms to keep it in check like freedom of press, education, and checks and balances.
1. Indifference ... fits most people around the world.
2. Avoidance of taking any individual responsibility. Sounds very western to me, but it's not the state that's supposed to provide. It's everyone else who's expected to accept demands and wishes.
3. Chauvinism. The dominant cultural influence in the EU is the US. News are biased towards the west and rarely ever contain anything substantial from outside, unless it's to bash someone. No matter how much people travel to other countries, they're still the same domesticated apes when they've returned.
4. Obedience. Oh boy, europe got plenty of that and people don't even realize.
5. Heavy drinking. Well, that's actually typically Austrian. Though "heavy" is relative, of course. Someone drinking three beers daily might not be drinking vodka, but it's still alcohol and it's still daily. They'd not be considered a "heavy drinker" there, yet, of course they are.
This submission is just mindless bashing. There's no point in attacking the russian people like this. You should look at how stupid and degenerated your own people are. I can assure you that, without knowing where you're from, you're living in a massive blob of them.
>This submission is just mindless bashing. There's no point in attacking the russian people like this. You should look at how stupid and degenerated your own people are. I can assure you that, without knowing where you're from, you're living in a massive blob of them.
I can't speak to the USSR or Europe but having lived and worked in about half a dozen US states I assure you the authoritarianism is not evenly distributed. In my observation it seems to track with government ability to enforce whatever its whims are (which correlates strongly with wealth), ability of people to cater to those whims and jump through those hoops (also wealth correlated) and inability of the people to affect said government whims they disagree with or are hurting them without the blessing of those currently holding power.
I think there was this theory of concergence between capitalism and socialism. It was a thing back in the seventies. I still think that the authors of this theory were on to something..
I've been reading about the Russian Revolution lately, and one feature of radical revolutionary thought has stuck with me: they believe that changing the environment in which people live will create a new type of person, the "New Soviet Man", or whatever name they give the particular flavor of new man their ideology will free humanity to become. This is in contrast to the conservative and reactionary idea of humanity, where there is a human nature that is constant, and the best a new environment can offer them is a different way to express their essential humanity, with all its typical virtues and failings. I personally think history bears out the latter view pretty well, but even if you don't find either convinces you, it's a valuable way to view the aspirations of the two schools of thought.
This "homo sovieticus," has echoes in a few places, as it seems like problem that as always been with us. Most recently, it matches the (a bit vicious, imo) right wing "NPC" meme fairly closely, which refers to "non-player characters," a feature of role playing games and videogames whose dialogue and action are rote, and describes people whose ontology is defined by dominant narratives. Arendt talked about them as "Little Eichmanns," in reference to people who think in clichés to justify participation in atrocities and organized crimes against humanity. The existence of the middle class is a fairly modern development, where previously they would have been called the "mob," and mob rule, and the role they played in the French revolution was that of the "sans coulottes." It's a reocurring theme.
What's notable about the archetype is that it is independent of class because it is an identity that is the effect of an orientation and alignment to power without a guiding principle. The term I have used for this archetype has been "banal nihilist," but I've come to suspect the idea is conceptually closer to something that some evangelicals are talking about when they talk about "spiritual warfare" (big thing with many of them) where there is essentially a force that seeks to separate the individual from the basic human dignity provided by a belief in God, which elevates humans above animals because we can take moral instruction. This evil wants to spiritually enslave people. A similar evil force comes up in other world religions as well. The idea that we are just animals, and our ethical and moral systems are only material and immediate and accountable to other men is seductive and even liberating in a limited sense, but it deprives life of the possibility of meaning from beyond what we can materially percieve in the moment, as though our purpose could be no greater than that of a cow or a chicken. Whereas, to make anything new, necessarily, you need to believe in the possibility of something you can't yet see, and so a belief in a God as representing something greater than your material circumstances ensures this possibility is always in mind. Without it, you're just a cog, etc. There's probably an evolutionary reason for it, but it seems unreasonably effective.
This Homo Sovieticus seems to have analogies to the New Man, the Last Man, and other states of subjugation, and perhaps the lesson from the general theme is that we should be critical of people and ideas that attempt to moralize individual subjugation.
62 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadthe modern russian has traits of a soviet but is a different person
plus the actions of a country’s leaders do not represent the entire will of the people
and what is the will of the Russian people?
A human, when basic needs are at play, has no independent will anymore. Putin has his hand on the country, as long as he can make people believe he is the only solution to their prosperity.. their will will align with that. That's partly how he maintained his position it seems.
What's kind of funny is that long time ago Putin 'wanted' to distance himself from communism in order to not lose public support,though he always wanted to serve his own interests by carefully choosing his words, compared to someone like Yeltsin who arguably had more attempts at a more 'democratic' approach.
When you immigrate you hang tightly to “your” culture it freezes you.
sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad.
said another way, your identity is fixed on point of immigration while those living in the country have a chance to evolve.
If the Russian people don't agree with war. They would show up in the capitals and shut down the country until this problem is resolved.
If they do not, then your claim that Putin doesn't represent the entire will of the people is wrong.
The subsequent poverty and isolation the Russian people are about to go through will mean the Russian people have all the reasons in the world to oppose the government. If they don't, then it just proves how much they support Putin.
After watching a video where Sergey Naryshkin, the director of russian foreign intelligence service, was visibly stuttering trying to find the right words to answer a simple question by Putin, hoping for his dear life that he didn't say something wrong, well, I'm not quite sure a reasonable person who cares about the life of their loved ones is going to risk it all. There wouldn't be dictators if it was easy to go to the streets and take it back.
Yes I saw the same video. Putin surrounded himself with yesmen and propaganda. He most likely misled himself.
Also yes, it takes a strong people to stand up to their government. We saw many people in the middle east topple their governments during the arab spring.
Do you think the Russian people are strong enough to do the same? Idont.
true.
but it's also sending a message to his people "I can do whatever I want, look how afraid they are of me"
If 50% of the populace hits the streets. The police are literally incapable of doing anything. Yes, they could even spark a civil war, but the alternative is the ongoing disaster of Russia.
Strong disagree. The Russian people are victims of their government too, held at gunpoint from expressing their opinions freely. A sufficiently large crowd might be able to storm the institutions of government, but a lot of people would have to be at the front of that crowd, literally in the firing line.
If they are victims, they will stand up against Putin. If they are not victims, they will not.
The world just has to sit back and watch as the Russian people collapse.
This war is probably costing around $25 billion a day before sanctions. With sanctions? Russia is no longer on the world stage.
You know who owns significant amounts of Chinese land? Russia. China hates Russia. Is China about to declare war on Russia to take their land back?
If China moved into Ukraine to fight the Russians at the same time as taking Manchuria back. Absolutely nobody will hear about vladivostock falling as the world applauds China. However, Russia was smart, they announced their 'no limit' alliance with china immediately before this invasion.
Was china aware russia was using them to invade ukraine? Or were they only told about the 2 republics? Why did china rush to tell russia to get to peace talks? Why did Russia slap them in the face and say no?
Is this even a meaningful statement? If you took a Soviet professor of physics in a big Moscow university and a Soviet grocery shop cashier in a small Russian town, would you find common traits among them that would at the same time set them apart from a professor of physics in a Finnish university or a Chinese shop assistant?
"From the Russian point of view, creating a sphere of influence that would return Russia to its relatively defensible imperial boundaries is imperative."
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-russia-pe...
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220301131639/https://12ft.io/p...]
But what is really interesting is, everybody knew that. But nonetheless let it happen, for one reason or another.
I know they have connections to the Western intelligence agencies but if you’re ever looking for a facts based analysis of a geopolitical situation, their reports are very good - dry, but highly detailed and often provide a lot of historical context for how the present situation arose.
Not unbiased, but I guarantee you’ll learn something.
Compared to someone involved in day to day? Superficial.
Compared to NYTimes? Detailed and well researched.
The motivation to keep Ukraine in Russia's military sphere probably has as much to do with economics as anything else.
Now I could be wrong and maybe there are a lot of strings being pulled in disguise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Operation Ajax, how fitting. He also ended tragically in insanity.
There is good reason for Lord Ismay's saying about NATO: 'Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'
Actually I'm glad about that Americans thing, because of that Germans thing. Not because of that Russians thing.
But as I said, I'm a geostrategic determinist.
You just can't be sure, your life and hopes die from one day to the other. Just ask the Ukrainians, the Afghans or half of the middle east from 2003 onwards.
Oh, just in case you are US-American. Congratulation, everything you need and could wish for you have on your continent, including nukes and cheap labour from the south. You don't need anybody else, they need you at most. And there weren't many Invasions on the US, were there? Of course they're maniacally obsessed with their paltry Civil War. Ridiculous. Must be something they really fear.There you have your kitchen sink psychology.
Which brings me back to the mess with Russia. This is their last attempt for a long, long time. Their demographics works against them.Their population is shrinking and ageing. So is the German one. But the Germans were pampered by the US after WWII because of the Soviet Union. Supervised and pampererd. The Russians were just left aside as losers and geostrategical bystanders after Soviet collapse. Now it's their endgame.
Imagine if Gatling had invented his multi-barreled, rotary rifle a few years earlier. Too bad his sales reps couldn't demonstrate its usefullness and superiority sooner. Say, used by the National Guard against striking miners in Pittsburgh or something. Enough of them in Unionist hands and Ghettysburg would have been over in a few hours instead of three days. And so would the ACW.
Dixie's young and upright wheat mowed down in hours.
A grand metapher for the Union victory. And industrialism, of course.
So to say, they lived Grove's Motto long ago, only the paranoid survive.
The thing is, I thought these dark times when people are sent to kill each other to redraw some arbitrary lines on the map are long gone, together with its apologists.
"Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
'Relax, ' said the night man,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
It's meaning seems to vary with the country, which could be an indication of geostrategic determinism and I highly suspect it's a dirty word among extremists.
NATO is historically and inherently an anti-Russian alliance. It has been since it's inception. In 90's and 00's Russia has made multiple advancements towards joining NATO, but was dismissed, reassuring the worst fears among Russian military branch of government, that they wouldn't be seen as allies.
You should bear in mind that countries are not persons. And their alliances are not mere "friendships". They are slowly moving clumsy structures and the alliances are constraints.
All that is happening today has been predicted long ago and now we are simply "enjoying" the consequences of a long trail of politicians' failures. Politicians that favored short-term populism over long-term global stability, failing to set a vector for these structures that would result in mutual benefit, rather than an expected confrontation.
That is the great Russian tragic, they never can be sure to be safe. It ends in paranoia. Paranoia with nukes.
US was not happy with nukes in Cuba. What would you say today if Russia put nukes to Cuba? Would you be paranoid ?
Just to clarify, I'm not from Russia, neither I support this war. But I don't think that West is innocent and wouldn't take a chance to destroy Russia at the first possibility.
By destroying I don't necessary mean physical destruction. Disarming, separate regions into different countries (divide and conquer), convert those into little harmless countries depending on West with everything. That still destruction in my book.
Yes, but doesn't that imply, today also nobody can 'strangulate' Russia? The Russians were weaker then, why would the West do it now, when the Russians are stronger and there are still the nukes that prevented it back then?
https://funker530.com/video/the-weird-texan-guy-embedded-wit...
1. Indifference ... fits most people around the world.
2. Avoidance of taking any individual responsibility. Sounds very western to me, but it's not the state that's supposed to provide. It's everyone else who's expected to accept demands and wishes.
3. Chauvinism. The dominant cultural influence in the EU is the US. News are biased towards the west and rarely ever contain anything substantial from outside, unless it's to bash someone. No matter how much people travel to other countries, they're still the same domesticated apes when they've returned.
4. Obedience. Oh boy, europe got plenty of that and people don't even realize.
5. Heavy drinking. Well, that's actually typically Austrian. Though "heavy" is relative, of course. Someone drinking three beers daily might not be drinking vodka, but it's still alcohol and it's still daily. They'd not be considered a "heavy drinker" there, yet, of course they are.
This submission is just mindless bashing. There's no point in attacking the russian people like this. You should look at how stupid and degenerated your own people are. I can assure you that, without knowing where you're from, you're living in a massive blob of them.
I can't speak to the USSR or Europe but having lived and worked in about half a dozen US states I assure you the authoritarianism is not evenly distributed. In my observation it seems to track with government ability to enforce whatever its whims are (which correlates strongly with wealth), ability of people to cater to those whims and jump through those hoops (also wealth correlated) and inability of the people to affect said government whims they disagree with or are hurting them without the blessing of those currently holding power.
The link to an article from the soviet encyclopedia (they didn't like the idea, actually) https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Convergence+Theo....
Indifference to the results of his labour
Lack of initiative and avoidance of taking any individual responsibility for anything.
Obedience to or passive acceptance of everything that government imposes
I can go on but it is better to stop.
What's notable about the archetype is that it is independent of class because it is an identity that is the effect of an orientation and alignment to power without a guiding principle. The term I have used for this archetype has been "banal nihilist," but I've come to suspect the idea is conceptually closer to something that some evangelicals are talking about when they talk about "spiritual warfare" (big thing with many of them) where there is essentially a force that seeks to separate the individual from the basic human dignity provided by a belief in God, which elevates humans above animals because we can take moral instruction. This evil wants to spiritually enslave people. A similar evil force comes up in other world religions as well. The idea that we are just animals, and our ethical and moral systems are only material and immediate and accountable to other men is seductive and even liberating in a limited sense, but it deprives life of the possibility of meaning from beyond what we can materially percieve in the moment, as though our purpose could be no greater than that of a cow or a chicken. Whereas, to make anything new, necessarily, you need to believe in the possibility of something you can't yet see, and so a belief in a God as representing something greater than your material circumstances ensures this possibility is always in mind. Without it, you're just a cog, etc. There's probably an evolutionary reason for it, but it seems unreasonably effective.
This Homo Sovieticus seems to have analogies to the New Man, the Last Man, and other states of subjugation, and perhaps the lesson from the general theme is that we should be critical of people and ideas that attempt to moralize individual subjugation.