[OfSanguineFire]

That kind of passivity can most definitely be described as dissidence. Those Soviets who circulated literature through samizdat, who put on performances of disapproved modernist music or poetry in their own flats to a small circle of peers, etc. are commonly described as dissidents even when they never publicly challenged the authorities.

The claim that such dissidents are collaborators is, again, Western-centric. Dissidents can and have argued that the regime's internal contradictions will eventually undermine it, without them having to take actions that put themselves at risk or leave them open to accusations of aiding the enemy.

[denton-scratch]

> Those Soviets who circulated literature through samizdat

I count that as "speaking up". GP spoke of people who retreat into what seems to be passive silence.

Incidentally, I said they're like collaborators; I didn't say they were collaborators. I meant they're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[OfSanguineFire]

> GP spoke of people who retreat into what seems to be passive silence.

I said people who retreat into private words. Samizdat was a private world. Events held in people’s homes was private worlds. Writing non-conforming literature or music “for one’s desk drawer” was a private world. Modern dissidents using censorship-evading, privacy-guaranteeing software to enjoy community are in private worlds.

Calling such dissidents “part of the problem” is not helpful. There have been famous cases where Westerners’ demands for how dissidents should behave, actually pushed dissidents closer to the regime.