One has to feel tremendous compassion, remorse for these who endured the unendurable. As the author's mother said, 'cowardice' is the death knell. How many today would not be cowards..?
2
I find the retrospective series such as this one and the Viet Nam articles to be some of the most valuable journalism that the NYT offers.
Amidst our hair-on-fire,sky-is-falling 24 hour news cycle, thoughtful reconsideration of the recent past is a balm to my frayed nerves. What it does is show that there is always a way forward not matter how dire the circumstances may seem at the present moment. Gulags and carpet bombing, genocide and imperialism, although they still exist, make the problems being faced today pale in comparison.
The confidence needed to keep moving in the direction of creating a better future for all can be found in examining past successes and failures lest "conscience doth make cowards of us all."
Amidst our hair-on-fire,sky-is-falling 24 hour news cycle, thoughtful reconsideration of the recent past is a balm to my frayed nerves. What it does is show that there is always a way forward not matter how dire the circumstances may seem at the present moment. Gulags and carpet bombing, genocide and imperialism, although they still exist, make the problems being faced today pale in comparison.
The confidence needed to keep moving in the direction of creating a better future for all can be found in examining past successes and failures lest "conscience doth make cowards of us all."
5
A brilliant article that should remind those who'd like to romanticize Communism of what it actually entailed. The physical deprivations it caused might have been justifiable in pursuit of socialism, but the lies, injustices, and suppression of opinion and thought it enforced were criminal.
6
I also grew up as a "grandchild" of a Communist/Socialist regime in another Eastern European country, about a decade later than the author of this piece. A lot of her writing obviously rings both familiar and true, but not some of her conclusions. (Which itself tells you there is something beyond the "objective material conditions" that leads to personal attitudes and even political behaviors.)
This sentence grated on me in particular: "One thing you learn in a socialist experiment is that equality is not a natural state of the world." How can you possibly learn that, given that *nothing* about any version of political and economic arrangements -- whether communist or capitalist -- is "natural"?
In contrast, I happen to find the inequality I observed during my childhood and teenage years under Communism AND now in my life in the US (deeper-reaching and more wide-spread through society) for the past 20 years or so equally unnatural.
This sentence grated on me in particular: "One thing you learn in a socialist experiment is that equality is not a natural state of the world." How can you possibly learn that, given that *nothing* about any version of political and economic arrangements -- whether communist or capitalist -- is "natural"?
In contrast, I happen to find the inequality I observed during my childhood and teenage years under Communism AND now in my life in the US (deeper-reaching and more wide-spread through society) for the past 20 years or so equally unnatural.
6
It's interesting to compare this account with what our federal and state governments have become under the current iteration of the GOP.
A fish rots from the head down. Trump governs by whim...and a more stupid whim than Stalin.
A fish rots from the head down. Trump governs by whim...and a more stupid whim than Stalin.
4
I didn't grow up in communism. But growing up black in the deep south wasn't much better. Your brick apartment building was probably better than the shotgun shacks of many a rural black community.
There were no party bosses to please. But there were plenty of white bosses whose ego and every whim had to be carefully analyzed and tended to. A mistake might mean firing. Too many mistakes might mean an arrest or worse.
There was no local Central Committee to assign African Americans to jobs. That task was done by a combination of law and custom reaching as far back as the Black Codes of 1866.
During harvest season you either worked the plantation or went to jail. School was curtailed to put even young hands in the field. Union organizing would get one run out of town or killed. Some towns had the sheriff patrol the local bus station to prevent able bodied workers from leaving during harvest.
But for those who labored behind America's cotton curtain there wasn't even the illusion of a noble cause or revolutionary spirit. We were not part of a glorious proletariat, no matter how false that image might have been.
We were simply part of a system of racial subordination that those in the north thought was racial separation. But separation was just the means.
Things have changed for you, as they have for us. But I can't help but look back and hope that as Dr. King proclaimed, our next revolution must be one of the spirit. I'm willing to take my chances with that.
There were no party bosses to please. But there were plenty of white bosses whose ego and every whim had to be carefully analyzed and tended to. A mistake might mean firing. Too many mistakes might mean an arrest or worse.
There was no local Central Committee to assign African Americans to jobs. That task was done by a combination of law and custom reaching as far back as the Black Codes of 1866.
During harvest season you either worked the plantation or went to jail. School was curtailed to put even young hands in the field. Union organizing would get one run out of town or killed. Some towns had the sheriff patrol the local bus station to prevent able bodied workers from leaving during harvest.
But for those who labored behind America's cotton curtain there wasn't even the illusion of a noble cause or revolutionary spirit. We were not part of a glorious proletariat, no matter how false that image might have been.
We were simply part of a system of racial subordination that those in the north thought was racial separation. But separation was just the means.
Things have changed for you, as they have for us. But I can't help but look back and hope that as Dr. King proclaimed, our next revolution must be one of the spirit. I'm willing to take my chances with that.
24
I would be curious to know how the author would connect the Soviet Union, as she experienced it, with Putin's genuine popularity in Russia today? Perhaps it is a similar, if less generalized, phenomenon that explains the current popularity of Trump, who appears no more interested in democracy, self government, and rule of law, than Putin does. There were probably true believers wielding the levers of power throughout most of the history of the Soviet Union, just as there are the misguided among the liberal elite in this country whose complacency and selfishness allowed conditions to ferment to the point that Trump became possible as a viable alternative to lead the country. It is the next step that should worry most of us--the great unwinding that in the Soviet Union resulted in oligarchy and despotism. That's what should concern us in the US now.
24
Communism is the figleaf of fascism.
12
I read just about all of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn decades ago and also Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita,” Excellent commentary - and shows that when any system is populated by greedy liars - it is prone to disintegration - Unfortunately we have taken the first steps here in America - the liars are in control.
27
At the end of her essay, the author asserts that the most vile consequence of communism was the ensuing "cowardice" of the Russian people
The Soviet Union had flaws, but I would pause before I called the Russians Cowards.
Russia fought valiently and heroically during world war two.
Yes, our British friends were great, but the Soviets certainly showed more vigor and courage in battle. Whereas the British a) withdrew from Dunkirk and b) surrendered at Tobruk even thought they outnumbered the Germans 45,000 to about 15,000, The Russians:
A) Lost 20 millions civiilians and soldiers in WW TWO
b) During the Siege of Leningrad some people starved and lived on candles and shoe leather
c) In the Fall of 1943, the number of Germans on the Russian front outnumbered the Germans on the Italian front, facing the Brits and the US, by 8 tp 1.
The Soviet Union had lots of flaws, but many of the faults were not caused by either communism or the "Russian character." For starters: 1) Many of the horrors immediately following the revolution were caused by the invasion of Russia by 17 states which sought to strangle the nascent socialist state and 2) The terrors propogated by the White Russians.
Let's not forget Russia's triumphs, eg. a) Kruschev wasn't taught to read in his youth, but he was educated by the communists and he became the leader of the USSR, evincing tremendous social mobility, b) in Tzarist times, poverty was so great that wheat was mixed with saw dust in making bread.
The Soviet Union had flaws, but I would pause before I called the Russians Cowards.
Russia fought valiently and heroically during world war two.
Yes, our British friends were great, but the Soviets certainly showed more vigor and courage in battle. Whereas the British a) withdrew from Dunkirk and b) surrendered at Tobruk even thought they outnumbered the Germans 45,000 to about 15,000, The Russians:
A) Lost 20 millions civiilians and soldiers in WW TWO
b) During the Siege of Leningrad some people starved and lived on candles and shoe leather
c) In the Fall of 1943, the number of Germans on the Russian front outnumbered the Germans on the Italian front, facing the Brits and the US, by 8 tp 1.
The Soviet Union had lots of flaws, but many of the faults were not caused by either communism or the "Russian character." For starters: 1) Many of the horrors immediately following the revolution were caused by the invasion of Russia by 17 states which sought to strangle the nascent socialist state and 2) The terrors propogated by the White Russians.
Let's not forget Russia's triumphs, eg. a) Kruschev wasn't taught to read in his youth, but he was educated by the communists and he became the leader of the USSR, evincing tremendous social mobility, b) in Tzarist times, poverty was so great that wheat was mixed with saw dust in making bread.
11
Physical bravery is equivalent to moral bravery? The Wehrmacht also fought “valiantly” and were certainly no cowards. And how nice for the communists to teach Nikita Khrushchev how to read. How else was he going to preside over the prisoner camp that was the Soviet Union and, among other glorious achievements, the construction of the Berlin Wall with orders to shoot on sight anyone trying to flee the workers’s paradise?
3
By my reading of history, for centuries the great majority of Russians have so feared disorder -- especially the kind that flows so freely from their own populace -- that they repeatedly accepted and endorsed murderous tyranny.
Since Putin was first appointed as head of state, he has progressively rolled back the freshly minted political and civil rights of his own people, and demolished all of the components necessary for a functioning democracy. He enjoys one of the highest approval ratings of any national leader.
While Russia's economy was still growing, a common attitude was "we can close our eyes to this destruction of our rights and institutions, because we have more rubles than we did last year."
Now, a common attitude is, "well, he's Making Russia Great Again!"
Russians love to complain, and have a great genius for jokes that acidly mock the depravity of their system and its leaders. They bleat, like so many sheep. They know in their hearts that something's wrong, but most won't lift a finger to put things right.
David, if that isn't cowardice ... what's YOUR word for it?
Since Putin was first appointed as head of state, he has progressively rolled back the freshly minted political and civil rights of his own people, and demolished all of the components necessary for a functioning democracy. He enjoys one of the highest approval ratings of any national leader.
While Russia's economy was still growing, a common attitude was "we can close our eyes to this destruction of our rights and institutions, because we have more rubles than we did last year."
Now, a common attitude is, "well, he's Making Russia Great Again!"
Russians love to complain, and have a great genius for jokes that acidly mock the depravity of their system and its leaders. They bleat, like so many sheep. They know in their hearts that something's wrong, but most won't lift a finger to put things right.
David, if that isn't cowardice ... what's YOUR word for it?
3
Day to day life is not usually very exciting but real change only happens when it becomes part of day to day life. The core value of progressive political ideology is that the injustices and imperfections of today will be replaced by just and perfect institutions in the future. But like some have observed, we only have what exists now, the future is a country that does not yet exist. The Marxist ideal of communism where everyone receives what they need and provides what they have the ability to provide, no state, no need for state institutions, just workers in control of the means of production which provides for all, was a imaginary ideal. It was a reaction to a very selfish and predatory form of capitalism which enriched a few and impoverished and huge number of laborers who worked the capitalists factories. By the mid-twentieth century the industrial societies around the world determined how to make sure that the fruits of productivity were shared by all while not depriving the capitalists of the means to develop more ways of making more money, by adopting many policies developed by non-Marxist socialists. Meanwhile, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the harsh means of enforcing equality, sameness, upon all but the elite servants of the workers, ran inefficient and unjust societies which could not allow people to adapt on their own but could not produce enough to care for all, either. Marxist-Leninist believers thought their philosophy to be infallible.
5
It looks like population will top out at some tenable level, then even out age and sex. Two centuries. If so growth and profits will be modest and hard won. Capital slow to accumulate and challenging to keep. Every kind of labor will be in short supply and high demand. Natural forces then will have made simple workers well off. Top earners will be very very good at functions very difficult or undesirable. If only peace were to prevail, weapons became irrelevant, and the big preoccupation of heads of state was solid waste management. If only.
1
Today's revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives.
There is a book by János Kornai that helps explain why, as opposed to the endemic shortages of socialistic societies, capitalism perpetually produces surpluses. Thankfully for progressives, who so dislike reading anything they disagree with, it's short, a mere 160 pages. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dynamism-rivalry-and-the-surplus...
The Left will never give up the dream that there is an alternative, as yet untried in all history, that is neither communism nor capitalism. That there is not and cannot be such a thing as democratic socialism I understand perfectly, but I understand that the Left will never accept this. Every time someone criticizes socialism in these pages, the Left's response is "The Soviet Union wasn't real socialism!" or "Well, what about capitalism's environmental spoliation, economic exploitations, social injustices?"
Repression is inevitable in collectivist societies. But manuscripts don't burn. Behemoth has torn the heads off the Left and no one has put them back on. Why is there always such a disparity between the goals of the Left and the results of their policies in the world, for which they never accept blame? If progressives want to rave re social democracy, fine, but let's recognize that these societies have other kinds of problems. If one seeks full-blown social democracy, be apprised of what America will lose in the transformation.
There is a book by János Kornai that helps explain why, as opposed to the endemic shortages of socialistic societies, capitalism perpetually produces surpluses. Thankfully for progressives, who so dislike reading anything they disagree with, it's short, a mere 160 pages. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/dynamism-rivalry-and-the-surplus...
The Left will never give up the dream that there is an alternative, as yet untried in all history, that is neither communism nor capitalism. That there is not and cannot be such a thing as democratic socialism I understand perfectly, but I understand that the Left will never accept this. Every time someone criticizes socialism in these pages, the Left's response is "The Soviet Union wasn't real socialism!" or "Well, what about capitalism's environmental spoliation, economic exploitations, social injustices?"
Repression is inevitable in collectivist societies. But manuscripts don't burn. Behemoth has torn the heads off the Left and no one has put them back on. Why is there always such a disparity between the goals of the Left and the results of their policies in the world, for which they never accept blame? If progressives want to rave re social democracy, fine, but let's recognize that these societies have other kinds of problems. If one seeks full-blown social democracy, be apprised of what America will lose in the transformation.
16
Who is this monolithic straw man you write of--the Left? Capitalized no less!
You are writing from one of the poorest cities in the country. It has shed 15% of its population over the past 40 years, dominated by flat-earth conservatives. If this is what America stands to lose in the transformation to what you call "full-blown social democracy" you will be hard-pressed to find many expressions of regret.
Successful societies are the product of a self-correcting balance between the yin and yang of their conservative members and their more restless, reformist progressive members. They're just two different--and ever present--personality and philosophical types. If you do not understand this how shall I distinguish you from the Bolsheviks?
You are writing from one of the poorest cities in the country. It has shed 15% of its population over the past 40 years, dominated by flat-earth conservatives. If this is what America stands to lose in the transformation to what you call "full-blown social democracy" you will be hard-pressed to find many expressions of regret.
Successful societies are the product of a self-correcting balance between the yin and yang of their conservative members and their more restless, reformist progressive members. They're just two different--and ever present--personality and philosophical types. If you do not understand this how shall I distinguish you from the Bolsheviks?
11
Isn't NY Times pro-socialism.
Socialism works great if it is about equal opportunity. But usually it's about equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. Countries like India ended up losing their brightest and the best because they tried to push everyone down rather than pull everyone up. Because by pushing everyone down a small group of people at the very top, could continue to remain at the very top. Things seem to be changing now.
Socialism works great if it is about equal opportunity. But usually it's about equal outcome rather than equal opportunity. Countries like India ended up losing their brightest and the best because they tried to push everyone down rather than pull everyone up. Because by pushing everyone down a small group of people at the very top, could continue to remain at the very top. Things seem to be changing now.
17
I was born a year after Ms. Edel. I also studied Bulgakov and other Russian writers in college. Most of my professor's adored Lenin, tolerated Stalin, and loved Mao. In order to get a good grade, my papers had to have a Marxist interpretation of literature. One of the professors' favorite topics was the workers' paradise in the USSR and China. After moving to Berlin and being able to compare West and East side by side, I discovered a different reality.
40
Why China is successful? But Russia isn't.
7
I lived and attended university in Hungary in the 70's and have not forgotten the experience. It informs my attitude towards the citizens of my country to this day. Whenever I hear that liberals have ruined the country, whenever I listen to people expressing admiration for "strong leaders: (read: dictators) in foreign lands, whenever I hear shouts about "taking back our country", I remember when I first found out that another student at school was required to go to the local police precinct each night and report to them every word I spoke. I remember when my soon-to-be wife had to go to a private interview with the local commissar to tell him she had no plans to leave Hungary. I remember having to fill out reams of paper each time I wished to move from one city to another, then spend days filing them in various agencies. I remember facing prison because of a single digit missing on a required form.
Americans unhappy with the state of their country (and there is much indeed to be unhappy about) need not only to look in the mirror but spend time in a country which does not have the guarantees and rights that so take for granted here. Better yet, spend some time studying (if not visiting) those countries from which so many are fleeing to understand why we have it so good.
Americans unhappy with the state of their country (and there is much indeed to be unhappy about) need not only to look in the mirror but spend time in a country which does not have the guarantees and rights that so take for granted here. Better yet, spend some time studying (if not visiting) those countries from which so many are fleeing to understand why we have it so good.
54
Brilliant read! I mean its a vicious cycle how one revolution is done in the favour of betterment but ends up being destructive! A classic case of unrequited repentance
10
And here in the Democratic U.S. many of us are anesthesized by consumerism. Happy to have lots of cheap stuff and shop til we drop.
And many of us can't even be bothered to vote.
What me worry?
And many of us can't even be bothered to vote.
What me worry?
33
Very easy--and even chic--to sneer at "consumerism." I do it myself. But after a year as an American graduate student at Moscow State University way back during the Brezhnev era, I learned how painful it is for those--our Soviet fellow students and their families--who spent frantic moments ferreting out one quieu or another that might have something of value at its far end; or studying the net shopping bag of a passer-by to see if she had something one might find to buy oneself; and envying those whose elite situations--or illegal contacts--provided them with access to hard-currency which they could spend at special shops where, unlike in ordinary Soviet department stores, "gastronoms," or collective farm markets, there were an array of groceries, or prized, mostly imported, consumer goods to be had. Just not for rubles.
Yeah, some of us "shop til we drop." Same in the USSR--they shopped til they dropped, and yet, after all that, and all too often, they brought nothing home to show for it.
Yeah, some of us "shop til we drop." Same in the USSR--they shopped til they dropped, and yet, after all that, and all too often, they brought nothing home to show for it.
13
The most dangerous people in Earth are the ones with a plan and the will to re-engineer humanity and build a Utopia. Millions of victims later they're still planning that perfect society.
28
What a fascinating story. My wife, Russian, is about the same age and tells a similar story of her time in Russia. She lived in Kazan a relatively large city east of Moscow in Tatarstan . A lot of her story relates to how her family adapted to the economic whims of the communist party. At one time, in order to buy anything than the most ordinary supplies, she and her family traveled to Moscow every weekend to wait in lines. At other times, more could be had at home in the local markets. Overall her description of her life parallels closely what I had read in Hedrick Smiths excellent book, The Russians. Another great book is the story of the MIG pilot that flew to Japan to defect. My father was one of the pilots with the good fortune to debrief him at the Pentagon. The first thing the pilots taught him was how to swear in English.
16
Ah, yes, but you see in Soviet Union (China, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela - replace as needed) Socialism was not implemented correctly. Next time, when WE build it, it will be done right.
And the graves disappear into the distance....
And the graves disappear into the distance....
25
When I was about 8 years old living in Leningrad, a friend and I somehow deduced that nobody really believed the Soviet propaganda. We asked our parents: Is it true? Do our teachers know? They knew. We then went back to faking enthusiasm for our own safety. What a situation for a child to be in.
46
It's happening here, but at a lower level and enforcement is more of a patchwork. Yet we've seen many examples of people saying or doing things in their private lives that only a decade ago would not have been controversial, but now result in loss of career.
Not the gulags, but closer to the reality of how those who didn't toe the party line in the USSR were treated post-Stalin.
Many of the corporations at the forefront of enforcement are vast, powerful, and have substantial, intricate, and effective connections to government, either directly through lobbying, via former employees / rotating door, corporate-controlled "think tanks" and influencing contributions to networks of NGOs, which themselves have broad ties to government via deep personal relationships, rotating door, family, and mutual dependence.
Most of this is cheered loudly by the left. Who would have thought? The left cheerleading vast corporate power that is tightly coupled to government (kind of like a system of governance that starts with an "f", huh?)
Not the gulags, but closer to the reality of how those who didn't toe the party line in the USSR were treated post-Stalin.
Many of the corporations at the forefront of enforcement are vast, powerful, and have substantial, intricate, and effective connections to government, either directly through lobbying, via former employees / rotating door, corporate-controlled "think tanks" and influencing contributions to networks of NGOs, which themselves have broad ties to government via deep personal relationships, rotating door, family, and mutual dependence.
Most of this is cheered loudly by the left. Who would have thought? The left cheerleading vast corporate power that is tightly coupled to government (kind of like a system of governance that starts with an "f", huh?)
2
It creates an unfortunate misunderstanding when "communism" is conflated with "socialism". The Soviet Union was no more "socialist" in any meaningful sense than the German Democratic Republic, better known as East Germany, was "democratic". Neither bore any resemblance to "democratic socialism" as found in Scandinavia and brought to recognition in the US by Bernie Sanders.
33
Worth nothing that the USSR was a vast multi-cultural empire and East Germany was under its thumb. The Scandanavian countries are very small, homogenous, modestly isolated, and were already fairly wealthy as they implemented their current political economic systems. (Norway is a particular standout as a petrostate.)
3
Yes, it was Bernie Sanders who taught Americans what Democratic Socialism is. If it wasn't for Bernie, most Americans would not understand the socialism in Sweden is not the same as Communism in the USSR. Hail Comrade Sanders.
As a counterpoint to the claims made by this author, See the NYTimes piece on "The cold war and America's Delusion of Victory" published on Aug 28, 2017. Here's an apt quote from the article: If the United States won the Cold War but failed to capitalize on it, then the Soviet Union, or rather Russia, lost it, and lost it big. The collapse left Russians feeling déclassé and usurped. One day they had been the elite nation in a superpower union of republics. The next, they had neither purpose nor position. Materially, things were bad, too. Old people did not get their pensions. Some starved to death. Malnutrition and alcoholism shortened the average life span for a Russian man from nearly 65 in 1987 to less than 58 in 1994.
If many Russians felt robbed of a future, they were not wrong. Russia’s future was indeed stolen — by the privatization of Russian industry and of its natural resources. As the socialist state with its moribund economy was dismantled, a new oligarchy emerged from party institutions, planning bureaus and centers of science and technology and assumed ownership of Russia’s riches. Often, the new owners stripped these assets and closed down production. In a state in which unemployment had, officially at least, been nonexistent, the rate of joblessness rose through the 1990s to peak at 13 percent. All this happened while the West applauded Boris Yeltsin’s economic reforms.
A better version of socialism is called for worldwide today!
If many Russians felt robbed of a future, they were not wrong. Russia’s future was indeed stolen — by the privatization of Russian industry and of its natural resources. As the socialist state with its moribund economy was dismantled, a new oligarchy emerged from party institutions, planning bureaus and centers of science and technology and assumed ownership of Russia’s riches. Often, the new owners stripped these assets and closed down production. In a state in which unemployment had, officially at least, been nonexistent, the rate of joblessness rose through the 1990s to peak at 13 percent. All this happened while the West applauded Boris Yeltsin’s economic reforms.
A better version of socialism is called for worldwide today!
14
The August 28 article to which you refer should be read side-to-side with this one, but for very different reasons. That fatuous piece, by a Western academic, was an attempt to equate the moralities underlying the Soviet and Western systems and to depict the Cold War merely as a power game between two morally equal adversaries. (People of good will on both sides believed that they were representing an idea whose very existence was threatened. It led them to take otherwise avoidable risks with their own lives and the lives of others.)
This article's depiction of a very real (and apparently everyday) life in the Soviet Union should remind dreamy academics of just what life under Communism was like, and why the Cold War was more a moral struggle than any other.
This article's depiction of a very real (and apparently everyday) life in the Soviet Union should remind dreamy academics of just what life under Communism was like, and why the Cold War was more a moral struggle than any other.
5
Hmm, I can see myself in her picture from 1974. Every family has a story of "those experimental years".
My mother's father was a middle class business man whose business was confiscated by the government overnight. They were only allowed to keep the house they lived in. My grandfather died shortly of shock and heartbreak.
My father's family was poor compared to my mother's family. They had the opportunity to move to the big city where they went to free school and moved up in the world.
I grew up in the 70's, free school, free health care, and actually for the problems I had as a child, they took good care of me. As for that free school, I can honestly say that I came to the US at age 14, did not speak any English, had six months of intensive English, after which I attended regular classes, skipped a grade and was years ahead of the native kids who could not find Romania on a map. I had to show it to them. I even attended UCLA, all because I had rock solid schooling. That they got absolutely right during the heyday of Communism.
What went wrong with Communism/Socialism was the tale as old as time. Greed, just run of the mill greed. Imbecile nobodies had power for the first time in their lives and had no problem enriching themselves while the rest made do with what they had, the ultimate hypocrites. It wasn't the ideas that were bad, it was the men in charge of the ideas that made them bad.
My mother's father was a middle class business man whose business was confiscated by the government overnight. They were only allowed to keep the house they lived in. My grandfather died shortly of shock and heartbreak.
My father's family was poor compared to my mother's family. They had the opportunity to move to the big city where they went to free school and moved up in the world.
I grew up in the 70's, free school, free health care, and actually for the problems I had as a child, they took good care of me. As for that free school, I can honestly say that I came to the US at age 14, did not speak any English, had six months of intensive English, after which I attended regular classes, skipped a grade and was years ahead of the native kids who could not find Romania on a map. I had to show it to them. I even attended UCLA, all because I had rock solid schooling. That they got absolutely right during the heyday of Communism.
What went wrong with Communism/Socialism was the tale as old as time. Greed, just run of the mill greed. Imbecile nobodies had power for the first time in their lives and had no problem enriching themselves while the rest made do with what they had, the ultimate hypocrites. It wasn't the ideas that were bad, it was the men in charge of the ideas that made them bad.
57
When I was a faculty member at UCLA, in 1981 I interviewed scholarship candidates. The sole well-educated one was a recent immigrant from the Soviet Union. The Angelanos were airheads.
Yes, education was the one thing the USSR got right. It didn't do them much good. Education is good for the educated, but not a panacea for society, and an excess of frustrated "intellectuals" is destabilizing. It was the root of the French and Russian revolutions.
Yes, education was the one thing the USSR got right. It didn't do them much good. Education is good for the educated, but not a panacea for society, and an excess of frustrated "intellectuals" is destabilizing. It was the root of the French and Russian revolutions.
18
Second that. I easily skipped a grade as well, thanks to Soviet education.
Could it happen here? No, not in the current situation, not what she describes. What she describes, the Brezhnev era, took decades of bad decisions and a completely different starting point to get to.
The bad decisions we are making now are of a rather different nature and will likely lead to a different outcome.
The bad decisions we are making now are of a rather different nature and will likely lead to a different outcome.
4
Things can turn on a snap no matter how stable the system seems today. I have lived through collapse of the Soviet Union and, while there had been signs that things were not the same as they used to be, the process itself went super fast. Parts of one country became separate states overnight. An economic storm followed, the crazy 90s. This transition is not something I ever wish to live through again.
27
Kind of chilling. Could it happen here? Or... is it already happening here?
“The worst thing they had done to us,” my mother told me recently, as she sat in our American kitchen, “was turning us into cowards.”
“The worst thing they had done to us,” my mother told me recently, as she sat in our American kitchen, “was turning us into cowards.”
47
the only difference is we are narcissistic cowards -
10