History reveals how Authoritarianism usually develops and what one can do if facing it?

[Szdfan]

NZ was utterly authoritarian during the COVID fiasco. I consider banning church meetings for a year to be “authoritarian”.

Are these restrictions still in place or were they temporary?

They lasted over a year. I consider banning church to be authoritarian.

I realise a lot of y’all want us to just forget 2020 and 2021, but I haven’t forgotten.

Ok, so I’m going to paraphrase your question (what’s wrong with Franco?) back to you. What’s wrong with a government temporarily banning public gatherings (including church) to deal with a public health crisis?

If you can justify executing and imprisoning political opponents for the greater good (i.e. fighting Communism), why is it wrong for a government to do something much less severe (temporarily banning church services) that’s also for the greater good (i.e. fighting Covid)?

[Neto]

What did she mean by that.

I'm not sure - I imagine that if someone here understands Russian, they would likely have a better translation that would provide a better understanding. I took it in a way that I saw it as relating to the question of this thread, that the tendency is to struggle against suffering only when we are experiencing it. That is, possibly it is an appeal to try to overcome the elements of our culture that lend themselves to creating human suffering. She also said (earlier in the film, but at least twice) that God had turned His back on her, or on the Russian people as a whole, just "letting people do whatever they want".

But one of the later sections of the film delved into the opinions of the youth, who mostly didn't want to hear about the past, and thought that, as this woman's own daughter told her, "They wouldn't have put you in the prison if you hadn't dome something wrong". So, how can the young people (in any cultural situation) learn from and benefit from what the previous generations experienced? (Some of the young men interviewed seemed to embrace the authoritarianism they live under now, because "It reduces crime". (And even the older man who was one of the main "interviewees" basically said the same - that "freedom invites lawlessness".)

The Russians have never had a tradition of democracy — they went from the Tsars to the Communists to Putin. One of the appeals of authoritarianism is security and stability. Whether one is stable and secure depends on whether you’re in the in group or the out group.

There actually was a Russian Republic formed, but it was at war with the Bolsheviks from its very beginning. (They were often referred to as 'White Russians".) The Bolsheviks were also not all "on one page" as to what kind of government was wanted. Some actually wanted to form a Socialist Democracy, but they lost out in the end. Gorbachev seems to have been heading toward a "Communist Democracy", or some sort of hybrid, but "the freedom invited lawlessness", and his program for 'openness' failed. (At least that's my perception, but we were in Brazil during that time, so dealing with other kinds of concerns.)

[Szdfan]

I'm not sure - I imagine that if someone here understands Russian, they would likely have a better translation that would provide a better understanding. I took it in a way that I saw it as relating to the question of this thread, that the tendency is to struggle against suffering only when we are experiencing it. That is, possibly it is an appeal to try to overcome the elements of our culture that lend themselves to creating human suffering. She also said (earlier in the film, but at least twice) that God had turned His back on her, or on the Russian people as a whole, just "letting people do whatever they want".

But one of the later sections of the film delved into the opinions of the youth, who mostly didn't want to hear about the past, and thought that, as this woman's own daughter told her, "They wouldn't have put you in the prison if you hadn't dome something wrong". So, how can the young people (in any cultural situation) learn from and benefit from what the previous generations experienced? (Some of the young men interviewed seemed to embrace the authoritarianism they live under now, because "It reduces crime". (And even the older man who was one of the main "interviewees" basically said the same - that "freedom invites lawlessness".)

The Russians have never had a tradition of democracy — they went from the Tsars to the Communists to Putin. One of the appeals of authoritarianism is security and stability. Whether one is stable and secure depends on whether you’re in the in group or the out group.

There actually was a Russian Republic formed, but it was at war with the Bolsheviks from its very beginning. (They were often referred to as 'White Russians".) The Bolsheviks were also not all "on one page" as to what kind of government was wanted. Some actually wanted to form a Socialist Democracy, but they lost out in the end. Gorbachev seems to have been heading toward a "Communist Democracy", or some sort of hybrid, but "the freedom invited lawlessness", and his program for 'openness' failed. (At least that's my perception, but we were in Brazil during that time, so dealing with other kinds of concerns.)

There was also that brief moment during the Yeltsin years when Russia experimented with democracy, but these moments are blips compared to the whole of Russian history.