BRAINWASHED - Soviet Mentality 01
Soviet Mentality – the Negative Legacy
As a Russian speaker, I have maintained friendships and relationships with people from the former Soviet Union (the USSR) for decades. Actually, I’m NOW writing this post in Kyiv, Ukraine, in the middle of the ongoing war.
Of course, there exist millions of people with millions of personalities in each nation ALL over the World. So I should refrain from concluding a specific nation’s personality as the one. Having said that, no one can deny the fact that there are specific archetypal inclinations of the personality in a specific country, even in a region, a state, a city, or a community, reflecting their unique history and traditions.
Homo Sovieticus
In the Russian language, which is a common ‘international’ standard language in former Soviet Union countries, the Soviet mentality is sarcastically termed sovok (Совок) or vatnik (Ватник), and so on, reflecting a psychological legacy of the USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
On the other hand, Homo Sovieticus (Latin for "Soviet Man") is a sociological term describing an archetype of a conformist person created by the Soviet system. The term Homo Sovieticus is coined from Latin ‘homo’ meaning ‘human’ or ‘man’, and a Latinized version of the Russian adjective sovetsky (советский) designating the Soviet council, totally forming ‘Soviet Man’.
While the term was used in Sovietology earlier, the term Homo Sovieticus gained widespread popularity through Aleksandr Zinovyev(1922–2006)'s book title, “Homo Sovieticus.”
The Soviet regime initially aimed to create an ideal "New Soviet Man"(новый советский человек), who should be a well-educated (correctly, brainwashed), conformist, and enthusiastic builder of communism. However, the Homo Sovieticus acted as the antithesis of the "New Soviet Man" promoted by the communist propaganda. Homo Sovieticus refers to a man who is the real specimen of the Soviet system in reality, with the negative behavioral consequences of over 70 years of state-enforced artificial totalitarian uniformity.
7 Major Characteristics of Soviet Mentality
If you meet a Soviet person for the first time, you may feel the first impression that they are arrogant, impolite, rough, cold-hearted, and unsmiling. As I am Japanese, it's very unpleasant to me, just the opposite of the Japanese people’s character. Since I was born Japanese, Japanese people around me have always been delightful, smiling, tender, polite, courteous, and respectful to others.
However, once acquainted with a Soviet person, their attitudes change 180 degrees, and suddenly, they start treating you as a member of their family. This drastic contrast between strangers and ‘We’, the inner circle, such as their family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, is very significant to understanding the Soviet mentality. It's applicable NOT only for foreigners, but also among themselves. In short, it's nearly like a ‘friend or foe’ attitude.
1: Collectivism over Individualism
Soviet citizens were expected to prioritize collective interests over personal ambitions. There was strong solidarity among workers and neighbors at the expense of personal privacy.
Soviet collectivism was a complex blend of pre-revolutionary cultural traditions and forced ideological socialization designed to prioritize the state and collective over the individual. It was NOT merely economic, but a totalitarian social order that aimed to reshape consciousness to serve the Communist Party's ideology by creating a "collectivist self" whose individual values were derived from service to the community.
Actually, the roots of Soviet collectivism predate the 1917 Russian Revolution. Far before the Russian Empire, the peasant class originated from medieval agriculturalists, and then became heavily formalized under serfdom in the 16th and 17th centuries.
Historically, peasants operated within a mir (мир; world) or obshchina (община; commune), where land was owned collectively and redistributed periodically based on family size. This system forced group cohesion and cultivated a mindset of collective survival, eliminating individual autonomy.
And a pre-revolutionary philosophical concept, sobornost (соборность; spiritual community), emphasized the spiritual community and free unity in love as a precursor to collectivism. The sobornost also emphasized egalitarianism that the community MUST share the interests of ALL members equally. Until here, it's the deep-rooted traditional foundations of collectivism before the Russian Revolution.
Following the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks (Большевики; derived from Russian ‘bolshinstvo’ большинство, meaning "majority") used these pre-existing communal tendencies to promote a "collectivist self". Marxist-Leninist ideology aimed to eliminate individualism and private property, submerging personal interest in the common good.
2: Doublethink and Skepticism
You may have ever heard the word Doublethink. Yes, the term Doublethink was coined by George Orwell (1903–1950), appearing in his famous dystopian novel “1984 (Nineteen Eighty-Four)”(1949) as a Newspeak word. In the view of “1984”, Doublethink refers to the ability to simultaneously hold and accept two contradictory beliefs as a whole truth. Doublethink is a form of psychological manipulation, allowing individuals to accept Party propaganda while forgetting any conflicting reality.
In the Soviet context, while Soviet citizens outwardly professed conformity to the Soviet state, in private, they harbored distrust toward the Communist Party in silence and developed a schizophrenic dual way of thinking. Soviet citizens were compelled to simultaneously hold, accept, and act upon two mutually contradictory beliefs. Accordingly, as the legacy, Soviet people speak out one thing publicly, but believe another in silence privately as a skeptical way of Doublethink.
Soviet Doublethink is necessitated by the gap between official state ideology and daily reality. This cognitive mechanism is closely associated with the concept of Homo Sovieticus. It was a survival strategy under the totalitarian regime that demanded public conformity, contriving dual parallel universes of propaganda and lived experiences.
In the early Soviet era (1920s–1930s), the ideological foundation was laid when the Soviet state began enforcing a single Party line and punishing any deviation. As early as the mid-1920s, with the outlawing of factions, official doublethink and Newspeak were introduced to cover up the realities of Soviet life.
During the infamous Stalinist era (1927–1953), the blatant divergence between Party doctrine and horrible reality compelled Soviet citizens to adopt a dual faith, doublethink, to survive. For example, the Communist Party claimed aloud Utopian progress toward the ideology, while Soviet citizens actually suffered from mass starvation.
In the later Soviet period, the Brezhnev Era (1964–1985) is called "Era of Stagnation". As the Party ideology had been unveiled as a fantasy, inertia prevailed among Soviet citizens. The official rhetoric became increasingly ritualized. Soviet citizens, as well as even Communist officials alike, participated in the performance of conformity, even while NOT believing the plain lies to be realized.
“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone – to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink – greetings!” (1984, George Orwell)
3: Dependence on the State
Soviet people expect the government a lot to provide for ALL their needs, such as jobs, housing, education, healthcare, welfare, etc. This dependence has led them to a lack of individual economic initiative. This trait is just the opposite of Freedom.
The Soviet state-dependent mindset is a complex of psychological and social legacies. Moreover, this high reliance on the state for livelihood resulted in growing collectivist values and blurring the lines between public and private spheres. This mentality originated from the long-term Tsarist tradition (1547–1917) and was solidified during 74 years of Soviet rule, which restructured society through central planning, collectivization, and the paternalistic system of social dependency.
The roots of state dependency lie in centuries of pre-revolutionary history. Throughout the ages, the strong, centralist state was perceived as the sole provider of security and order. The Orthodox Church has also played a role in reinforcing this mentality through fostering a religious orthodoxy and a spiritual moral foundation that prioritized collective identity over individual autonomy.
Since 1922, the Soviet state had intentionally nurtured state dependence through a series of Soviet projects. The Communist Party subordinated Soviet citizens’ individual interests to the state through collectivization policies. It turned Soviet citizens into subjects as a whole rather than autonomous proactive agents.
And the state-controlled planned economy, called the Gosplan, secured Soviet citizens’ employment, housing, welfare, and social benefits. These economic policies minimized private ownership. The socialist way of life required dependence on the state for survival. It was then believed to be a guarantee of social stability. In this way, the authority of the state had been internalized.
In the Stalinist era (1927–1953), the Party searched for a usable past to re-consolidate state authority. For that purpose, they merged pre-revolutionary imperial traditions with socialist ideology to reinforce the etatism (state-centrism).
4: Austerities and Resourcefulness
Soviet people have developed a strong ability to adapt to material shortages, practicing a deficit culture. They have learned to live with chronic material shortages and make do with limited resources by makeshifts at hand.
Soviet austerity was a deep-rooted cultural and psychological adaptation to decades of state-imposed scarcity, rapid industrialization, and militarization during the Cold War. It fostered the fortress mentality in Soviet citizens’ minds that prioritizes collective survival over individual consumption.
Rooted in the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and solidified under the Stalinist era (1927–1953), Soviet austerities were also driven by the necessity to catch up with the Western industrial powers in the face of the Cold War at a massive human cost.
Following the Civil War (1917–1922), the Soviet Union faced a backward economy. Stalin's first 5-year plan (1928) initiated a NEW era of rapid state-driven industrialization. Resources were directed toward capital investments in heavy industries, factories, and railways. It necessitated severe austerity for Soviet citizens in consumer goods, including food and basic necessities.
In the face of the Cold War era, the Soviet regime viewed conflict with the West as inevitable, fostering a siege mentality that the country was under constant threat from the West. This obsessive fear led to excessive extreme militarization. For that, resources were prioritized for defense over consumer needs, ensuring chronic austerity.
To progress the collectivization, the Soviet government replaced individual farms to systematic collective farms, Kolkhoz (Колхоз; Collective Farm) and Sovkhoz (Совхоз; State Farm). This collectivization shift resulted in a massive loss of life, causing state-made famine. Soviet citizens, the rural and urban population alike, were forced to a harsh extreme of food austerity.
In addition, Soviet propaganda claimed sufferings as a necessary, respectable sacrifice for the eventual realization of noble socialist ideology, in addition to defending the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная война; World War II).
In the Brezhnev Era (“Era of Stagnation”)(1964–1985), after a period of growth, the Soviet economy stagnated. A consensus of inertia prevailed among Soviet citizens as a fear of change clinging to the status quo and elite apathy led to a bad spiral of prolonged shortages and the Communist Party’s mismanagement.
5: Skepticism towards Wealth
Soviet people view wealth with suspicion and material excess as immoral. Soviet skepticism against wealth stems from seven decades of communist ideology that equated private wealth with theft, exploitation, and political disloyalty. This skeptical view of wealth is rooted in the forced elimination of private property, coercive redistribution for collectivization, and state-mandated egalitarian ideology. This communist ideology cultivated a culture of suspicion toward personal economic success and extravagance, prioritizing public welfare over private ambition.
Communist ideology theoretically aimed for a classless society, viewing private wealth as an inherent feature of capitalist exploitation. Private properties were considered unearned or dirty assets. Uravnilovka (уравниловка = top-down enforcement of uniformity) forced ideological egalitarianism. Through Uravnilovka, the Communist regime enforced a standard that every fellow comrade MUST be encouraged to be equally poor in a row on the bottom line to reduce wealth inequality. This ideological propaganda cultivated a culture that viewed individual financial success and extravagance with suspicion.
Centuries of societal upheavals and the command economy fostered a mindset focused on survival in the middle of chronic scarcity, limiting the capacity for saving and growing a sense of futility in accumulating wealth.
Besides, wealthy citizens in the USSR relied on their status in the Communist Party to access special goods and services, rather than having liquid money. Even the money was useless compared to the prerogative. Accordingly, despite the Soviet authorities’ equality propaganda, social stratification and hierarchy thrived in reality. In the hierarchy, ONLY the elite had access to superior resources.
6: Fatalism and Endurance – Avos (Авось) Optimism
Soviet people believe that “life is always tough, but one MUST endure hardships with patience, hopefully, perhaps, random luck will come.” Such desperate optimism is included in ONLY a word Avos (авось, meaning “maybe” or ”perhaps”).
The Soviet fatalism and endurance are deeply rooted in centuries of authoritarian rule, orthodox fatalism, and the trauma of heavy repression. Under the fatalism and absolute authoritarianism, Soviet people (Narod, народ) were completely powerless, NO way to stake their lives. Life is determined by external, uncontrollable forces, the state or fate, whichever out of their reach. It rationally resulted in extraordinary patience, resignation, and a preference for collective survival over individual agency.
Centuries of serfdom and the absolute authority of Tsarist autocracy cultivated a deep sense of powerlessness and inertia among Soviet citizens. This legacy developed a mindset that the individual was insignificant compared to the state authority, and ironically fostered reliance on a strong dictator with NO way.
Besides, the Orthodox Church emphasizes humility, martyrdom, and the acceptance of suffering as dogma. This was translated into a spiritual acceptance of destiny rather than rebellion against it.
The Bolshevik Revolution (1917) and the subsequent Stalinist era (1927–1953) further reinforced the obsession that fate was arbitrary and extreme suffering was inevitable. Especially, Stalin’s dictatorship imposed absolute tyranny over Soviet citizens, threatening them through purges, the Gulag (гулаг; systematic labor camp), and state-made famine. This lasting trauma reinforces extraordinary passive endurance as a survival mechanism.
7: Deep Nostalgia
.jpg)
Soviet people, especially older generations who have grown up in the USSR, feel nostalgia for the Soviet era, remembering it as the good days of political stability, social security, and communal moral discipline.
Soviet nostalgia is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon prevalent among post-Soviet states in common. Soviet people sentimentally remember the political stability, social security, and superpower status in the Soviet era. This nostalgia involves an idealized memory of the Soviet way of life as a whole, focusing on social justice, collectivism, communal moral discipline, and scientific achievement, while ignoring, downplaying, or forgetting the cruel repressions of the Communist regime.
The primary driver of Soviet nostalgia was the economic and political collapse that followed the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As the greatest historical, political, economic, and cultural event in the 20th century in World history, for Soviet people, it was a big shock that everything had been overturned in one night. The introduction of the capitalist system brought rapid devaluation of currency and savings, high poverty rates, loss of employment, and a loss of status in the past Soviet hierarchy. The society was in chaos in every aspect. This was also the revolution, regardless of whether it was bloody or not. This unexpected, shocking experience was as if Soviet people became involuntary immigrants staying in their own country, but their familiar cultural, social, and economic world had gone, and an unfamiliar atmosphere had come in, despite NOT changing their place of residence… It could be an unbelievable nightmare.
While expecting much from the state, at the same time, the Soviet people view politics as something distant, corrupt, and best avoided, like a “We or They” view. High-caliber politicians are considered to be surely corrupted, exploiting their authority (and actually so). Soviet cynicism and antipathy against politics are deeply rooted in the historical experience of the 20th century. Soviet citizens had directly experienced totalitarian control, ideological indoctrination, and constant scarcity.
These dire memories forced Soviet people to adopt a complex schizophrenic dualism between ideology and reality to survive and protect their psychological wholesomeness. This cynicism and ambivalent doublethink are described as a major characteristic of Homo Sovieticus. It was formed by the need to survive an unpredictable authoritarian environment, leading to an ambivalent mix of distrust and apathy against politics and politicians, sometimes tacit obedience and hidden cynicism, and also a reliance on unauthorized informal networks as a workaround.
A History of a nation can be evaluated or re-evaluated later in the contemporary context. It's common. However, NO one can deny or erase history. History existed and exists.
The Soviet mentality is still alive. While it’s a state-made, artificial, mechanical, experimental production, this is a real fact established as a respectable custom and tradition within which people have grown up and lived, handing down to the next generations. If the Western people neglect the Soviet mentality or deny it without a proper, deep understanding, it's undoubtedly dangerous. The arrogant, ego-centric, self-justified blind attitudes, each other, will surely fall into a tragedy, typified by the clash of civilizations.
Further reading (sponsored by Amazon):
● Isaiah Berlin (2004). The Soviet Mind: Russian Culture under Communism. 290 pages. Brookings Institution Press.
(sponsored by Amazon)
In “The Soviet Mind: Russian Culture under Communism,” Isaiah Berlin's response to the Soviet Union was central to his identity, both personally and intellectually. “The Soviet Mind: Russian Culture under Communism” includes essays that have never been published before, as well as works that are NOT widely known because they were published under pseudonyms to protect Isaiah Berlin’s relatives living in Russia. “The Soviet Mind: Russian Culture under Communism” will assume its rightful place among Isaiah Berlin's works and will prove invaluable for policymakers, students, and those interested in Russian politics, past, present, and future!
Table of Contents
Foreword by Strobe Talbott
Preface by Henry Hardy
The Arts in Russia under Stalin
A Visit to Leningrad
A Great Russian Writer
Conversations with Akhmatova and Pasternak
Boris Pasternak
Why the Soviet Union Chooses to Insulate Itself
The Artificial Dialectic: Generalissimo Stalin and the Art of Government
Four Weeks in the Soviet Union
Soviet Russian Culture
The Survival of the Russian Intelligentsia
Glossary of Names by Helen Rappaport
Further Reading
Index
