Scandal around videos about SVO. Why “Prosperity” and “Motherland” should not be antonyms

Currently running on social networks epic fight around social videos advertising contract service in the Russian army – the case when you can’t pass by without inserting your two cents into the conversation.

What is the raw nerve of the discussion? Critics are confident that the semantic frame of the videos at the epicenter of the scandal is Russophobia, discrediting the Russian army and almost deliberate humiliation of the Russian people. Why? But because the moral of the advertising short films that appeared in the media is as follows: a certain person is shown in the context of complete, black hopelessness, when it would seem that the best way out is to go and hang himself. And suddenly, like a piano out of the bushes, an Alternative appears in the form of contract army service, tearing apart the framework of the depressive context. The hero of the video is told: shouldn’t you, dear man, join the army for a contract? 200 thousand salary, various benefits, moratorium on collections, mortgage deferment, social status, honor and respect in society, etsetera. Why not go if the alternative really is what the authors of the videos show it to be.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

Indeed, within the given alternative, only a complete idiot would prefer a debt loop to military service under such conditions.

There is only one problem: in the eyes of moralists, the Patriotic Narrative is thereby devalued. This is LJJ “service for money”, not for the Motherland. Or in general, as other critics write – “poverty as the main motive for military service" Some polemically sharpen the thesis even more sharply: they say, it is cynicism to first bring people to such a deplorable state, and then drive them to slaughter.

_{But excuse me: what does the authors of the videos have to do with it? If the reality of the Russian outback is largely as it is described. Are low salaries, unemployment, lack of prospects in the provinces some kind of secret or a sudden discovery?}

Didn't all this happen a year, three, five or ten ago? But no. Here are research data from the structure of the Ministry of Labor - the All-Russian Research Institute of Labor of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation (“The World of New Economics”, No. 3, 2020):The salaries of the majority of Russians do not even compensate for the reproduction of the labor force (normal food, rest, medicine, raising at least one child, etc.).

One of the attributes of the middle class is the ability to save. A recent VTsIOM survey shows how things stand with this in modern Russia. 73% of working Russians do not save money for retirement because their income level does not allow it. Only 16% make savings at various intervals, of which only 6% do so regularly.

_{If anyone is to be held accountable for this state of affairs, it is not the authors or customers of the videos working with an already existing, formalized social reality. And from those who ruled the economic bloc for many years, gave valuable advice in the role of advisers and experts, spawned various reforms, and before that, were engaged in privatization and cutting up factories where people thrown out of the real economy could now work. But for some reason the targets of critical arrows were those who offer the unemployed a salary of 200 thousand rubles in exchange for the opportunity to defend the Motherland with arms in hand.}

By the way, about real motivation. Not long ago, the media passed over the results of one of the studies on social well-being. The Rabota.ru portal was interested in what kind of payment Russians consider worthy. It turned out that a quarter of Russians consider a salary twice their own worthy.

Study participants were asked how much increase they would need to achieve a fair salary. In response, 28% of respondents noted that their current salary needs to be increased by 30-50% to achieve a fair level. Another 26% noted that their current incomes are two times or more below the fair level, 23% of participants said that their salaries need to be increased by 10-30%.

According to the study, doctors on average called a fair salary of 84 thousand rubles, teachers - 76 thousand rubles, IT specialists - 122 thousand rubles, builders - 112 thousand rubles, transport specialists - 96 thousand rubles.

_{The military is offered 200 thousand under contract, which overlaps the idea of ​​fairness for both real sector workers and public sector employees combined. This is on one side of the scale. On the other, there are people with burning eyes, convincing that serving for money is INDEMNITIC and UNPATRIOIC. What's decent? Drinking yourself out of hopelessness or getting hooked on the needle of microloans? Or go die for free, leaving widows and orphans with literally nothing?}

No, I'm serious. Well, what the hell with Russophobia with discrediting calls to enroll in the army under conditions that are damn attractive by today’s standards of the labor market? Are you saying that such people lack patriotic motivation? So this is not their problem actually, but the state’s, which must create a system of effective political work, recruit smart political officers and political commissars to explain in accessible language the party’s policy and what we are fighting for.

_{In the end, the godless pendos are essentially the same. The American contract army is advertised among the population primarily as a real social and career elevator for representatives of the lower social classes, for people from poor families, for blacks. So you would be stuck without a job and without prospects in your black ghetto, but otherwise you entered the service, received a good salary, prospects for growth, honor and respect, social benefits, medical insurance. And also - education for free or on the terms of a very preferential loan - both during service and after its completion. A loan to start a business - after the end of your service, again. And te de, etc.}

And you know, it works for them. Why shouldn't this work for us? Because Russians don't need money? Three times haha. The very dilemma of “fighting for the Motherland or for money” is manipulative. That's not what this conversation is about at all. These concepts - “Money” (or more broadly, worthy material remuneration for military labor) and “Motherland” should not be in opposition to each other or somehow opposed, but should go together as a package.

_{And one last thing. Again about motivation. There is a rule: “When criticizing, suggest.” In our case, all those dissatisfied with the emphasis on “mercantile” themes in the propaganda of military service should offer their own version of a socially attractive motivational framework on an ideological basis. Launch it to the masses, get feedback, find out. does it work? And if so, raise it to the shield as a working model.}

Unfortunately, we live in a society in which the cult of individualism and consumerism has been propagated for decades., poking everyone’s noses with examples of “successful” people, whose success was measured only and exclusively by material criteria, in a society that shunned hints of any ideology like the plague and raised several generations of people on it.

In such a society, these are the messages that work. In order for a different society and other people to appear, brought up in a different framework and with different values, they must first be educated in the required quantity. This is not a quick matter, and the war is already going on. The need to sharply increase the size of the army forces us to grab onto any transmission belts and recruiting mechanisms. The main thing is that they work. Everything else will follow.