"Ordinary People" and Fascism: A Conjunctural Perspective on (Pre)War Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the course of this war, the question of who feels themselves to be “ordinary people” or “ordinary Russians”, and what ideological and everyday consequences are drawn from this, takes on a new political dimension. The same applies to the questions of “unity”, ethics and the potential of the protest against Putin. In this paper, I will note some aspects that have already played a role in analysing social circumstances in pre-war Russia and that are now at the centre of current discussions on Russian ideology. I argue that the figuration of “ordinary people” in the last financial crisis (2015–2016) replaced the collective perspective on social inequalities or injustice, even when protest is organised and carried out by workers. In the context of the depoliticisation and individualisation of society, social protest by ordinary Russians (or just “the bottom”) is the only way to make concrete social demands. In building alliances (for example, among social protesters or between social protests and anti-Putin protests), it becomes particularly clear that the only collective strategy in this context is the ethnonationalist “unification of the people” against the elite. I also argue that a fascist ideology with imperial and ethnonationalist elements prevails in Russia today, which for years emerged from the bottom up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".