From: "Albert L. Weeks" <AWeeks11@comcast.net>
Subject: Escape from freedom
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005
Richard Pipes hit on an interesting point JRL 9210)--how Russian history invariably demonstrates that the people of that country prefer strong central leadership (autocracy)and tight security, so they can pursue their private interests. The eminent British historian, Sir Bernard Pares, compared this Russian temperament to that found in Latin American countries, where he thought similar tendencies and traditions prevail. The autocrat in those countries is called a caudillo. In recent years, a new such leader has appeared on the scene in the person of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who prefers the title "El Commandante" thus continuing a tradition found in Latin countries.
Following Pipes' thought, isn't it true that in a number of countries today this "individualistic" complex, abetted by individual-centered technology (of PC's, I-pods, etc.) can create a certain detachment or uninterest in active, democratic politics, or "apoliticism"? Which political uninterest in turn plays into the hands of proto-autocrats like Chavez and established ones like Castro?
The peoples (although perhaps not a majority of their populations) of such countries, including Russia, behave as though they were reasonably contented with a given regime so long as its strong leader took care of them while, in a sense, leaving them alone to pursue their parochial, non-political interests (unless rallied to participate in state-sponsored mass "demonstrations"). This in turn plays into the hands of autocrats by providing them with plenty of power to guard and enforce security (public safety) in their manner and decree cradle-to-grave social programs while, at same time, preventing rival political groups from challenging their centralized authority. Freedom, as Erich Fromm put it, is thus "escaped" by such entrapped, or captive people, who allegedly fear freedom for its reputed "anarchy."