Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Hmm, the idea of communism is certainly not bad, but it's somewhat utopian. Regarding the USSR, I might not be fully aware, as I don't know the history that well, but in the 80s, this system was indeed in decline. Replacing religion with atheism, the lack of an illusion of people's power, a shortage of goods, the absence of opportunities for entrepreneurship, and some remnants of censorship (if the socialist system had remained, we probably wouldn't be playing Heroes, as "The Lord of the Rings" wasn't even allowed to be published in the USSR) – so, the conclusion that the Soviet period was a significant achievement is quite valid.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Don't read modern newspapers. And don't believe everything you see on TV. If things were really that bad, why was Bulgakov published and films made based on his works? And Bulgakov isn't the only one in this regard. Even Tolkien was translated and published in the 80s, if not earlier. Religion wasn't replaced by atheism, but by another religion – communism, which is also a form of faith.
Saruman
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, faith in communism isn't exactly the best thing, would you agree? Only the first part of Tolkien's work was published, that's for sure. Although, I don't know about the rest... I'm just saying that I don't know that history very well. But I think that breaking away from the system is still a good thing, because communism is a utopia and it's practically impossible to achieve.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
But people had faith in the future. So what if it couldn't be achieved? You can't get to paradise either; it doesn't exist on Earth. But they still believe. That's how they believed in communism and strived for it. It just took a long time and was ultimately unsuccessful.
Tolkien was definitely published in 1988. Maybe even earlier. My father read The Hobbit and The Silmarillion back in college.
Leaving the socialist system would have been good if we had moved towards a better system. But instead, they threw people out of the barracks and onto the street. A barracks is better than the street. If they had moved people from the barracks into an apartment, that would have been a positive change, but as it is...
Saruman
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, I don't know, I really don't know, some people managed to get an apartment (and not just oligarchs, some of my relatives too). I'm currently studying psychology at the institute; I doubt I could have done that in the USSR (psychology wasn't exactly banned, but it wasn't supported, let's just say that). The freedom of creativity sometimes results in nonsense like Factor 2 or Bla-Bla Show, but it also leads to the free publication of fantasy works, the performances of Zadornov, the programs of Solovyov, and computer games like Heroes of Might and Magic. Regarding The Lord of the Rings – The Hobbit and the first part of The Lord of the Rings were published, but the Silmarillion and the second and third parts weren't (they were made by enthusiasts through samizdat).
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, there’s no need to talk about things you don’t know. I have books that are reprints from 1988. And The Silmarillion was published officially. Besides, science fiction and fantasy were also published; I have a lot of science fiction books at home that were published in the USSR. And there were funnier comedians than Zadornov in the USSR, like Arkady Raikin. Shows like Vzglyad and Do i posle polunochi also existed in the USSR. Now, it’s not freedom of speech, but rather indifference. Science fiction and fantasy are published because “people will buy it,” not because of freedom. You still can’t find the truth; take any channel – it’s all lies. Now, society has taken the worst aspects of the Soviet system and the worst aspects of the West.
Saruman
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, there's no need to talk about things you don't know. I have books that are reprints from 1988. And The Silmarillion was published officially.
- Well, that's not exactly the Soviet period. Besides, I immediately said that I don't know much about this history; I'm just expressing my opinion and sharing information from various sources that I've heard about from time to time. I didn't say anywhere that you can find the truth now. Regarding The Silmarillion - it's strange, because every time I've heard about it, people have talked about it being samizdat, along with the second and third parts of The Lord of the Rings, and in 1988, The Hobbit and the first part appeared.
Берсерк
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Alexey, you're a poor opponent. And the topic is completely uninteresting. You create a thread where you impose your "historical" view and try to say that everyone else is wrong, and the USSR was good. Create a thread like: "Praise the USSR!" and everything will be fine.
You liked the old system; you call THIS freedom and a good life? Then you're just a simple person who needs an average salary, a piece of sausage, drinks on holidays, and a religion (like communism) that would justify turning people into animals.
"Socialism":
1) Destroyed all the country's intelligentsia, which set it back many decades and will continue to cause enormous harm to culture.
2) Millions of people died during repressions, censorship, and the actions of institutions like the NKVD.
3) Led to the destruction of many spiritual values, temples, and traditions.
4) Ultimately left the countries individually in complete decline.
If you like it, go ahead and live in it. I'm just stating some facts and MY opinion. I spoke with a historian the other day, and I have enough knowledge to draw a conclusion. So, let's not pressure anyone.
Slonysh, it's a different book and a different author. However, what's the point of arguing? Go to China and experience the communist regime firsthand.
Alexey, you are a poor opponent. And the topic is completely uninteresting. You create a topic where you impose your "historical" vision and try to say that everyone else is wrong, and the USSR was good. Create a topic like: Praise the USSR! and everything will be okay. You didn't like the old system; you call THIS freedom and a good life? Then you are just a simple person who needs an average salary, a piece of sausage, drinks on holidays, and a religion (like communism) that would justify turning people into animals.
"Socialism":
1) Destroyed all the intelligentsia of the country, which had a negative impact for many decades and will continue to cause great harm to culture. 2) During the repressions, censorship, and the actions of institutions such as the NKVD, millions of people died in the country. 3) Led to the destruction of many spiritual values, temples, and traditions. 4) As a result, it left the countries separately in complete decline.
If you like it, live with it. I am just expressing some facts and MY opinion. I talked to a historian the other day, and I have enough knowledge to draw a conclusion. So let's not put pressure on anyone.
Slonysh, it's a different book and a different author. However, why argue? Go to China and feel the communist regime for yourself.
Berserk, you are a poor opponent. And the topic is completely uninteresting. You create a topic where you impose your "historical" vision and try to say that everyone else is wrong, and the USSR is bad. Create a topic like: Criticize the USSR! and everything will be okay. You didn't like the old system; you call THIS not freedom and not a good life?
Should I continue, or what?? Don't look for specks in other people's eyes; it's better to go to an ophthalmologist.
1. Really, ALL of them?? Let's avoid exclamation marks; they usually don't have much meaning. And the democracy of Russia was like an angel in human form in relation to the intelligentsia, and we all wore малиновые пиджаки, and bandits collected bottles in the trash for bread. 2. And were all the millions innocent??? I doubt it... It was in the 1930s that the "concepts," "godfathers," "bosses," and "thieves in law" originated in the prisons. Probably because only innocent and educated people ended up there, who got bored and started inventing ways to entertain themselves. Everything was correct; during the repressions, so much (sorry for the expression) scum, garbage, and human filth were dumped there that half of them should have been shot. 3. Accordingly, it gave rise to new spiritual values, etc.; if you don't like them personally, that doesn't mean they didn't exist. 4. And there was no need to separate; everyone wanted power for themselves. And then the question arises: did Tsarist Russia leave behind prosperity and well-being??? Probably, that's why there was a revolution...
I don't want to say "I like it or not"; I just didn't live there. But it's still better to avoid a one-sided approach (see the beginning of the answer).
And a little about China... Go to Iraq and talk about the humanity of democracy...
P.S. I didn't want to get into this topic, but...
P.P.S.
But let's not call Russia a democratic country.
And why shouldn't we call it a democratic country?? If here they call the USSR a socialist/communist power (people have different opinions about these concepts) because that's what is written in books, then we will call Russia democratic, since they shout about it at every corner and in every newspaper.
Sloys, it's a different book and a different author.
Excellent! Let me talk to you about Khrushchev's book, and you tell me about Akhmadulina's poems. I claim that Khrushchev's book says this and that, and you object: no, Homizuri's book says something else! Who is this Homizuri, that his words should be an indisputable truth? Does God speak through him? But Khrushchev's book is the book of an ideologist of communism and socialism, and he certainly knew what the political system of the USSR was called and how socialism differed from communism. Berserk;85591
However, why argue? Go to China and experience the communist regime firsthand.
You know, my dear, I'm already tired of your constant "sending away." You go... even to the Institute for Noble Maidens, learn to be polite to girls and to opponents in general.
Added after 8 minutes Saruman;85540
Tolkien's first part was the only one published, I know that for sure. Although I don't know about the rest... I'm just saying that I don't know that history very well.
So, if the first part was published, what grounds are there to say that the second and third were banned by censorship? It is quite possible that they were simply not translated because Tolkien's work was not very popular in our country at that time, and translating an unpopular book was considered unnecessary. By the way, no matter how much I admire Tolkien, frankly speaking, the widespread fascination with "The Lord of the Rings" is an escape from reality. People are now fascinated not so much by the book itself, but by the world created by Tolkien. And this has certain features of escapism.
Silvanis
19 years ago
Auto-translated
I've been reading and reading, and I'm amazed. I just have one question for AlexeyPank: what sources do you use that make the USSR seem like such a paradise on Earth? Please name at least three or four books; I would be interested to know from whom you mainly draw your information. This very simple check allows me to determine whether I can have a constructive dialogue with a person or not. If more or less reliable works, recognized by the Academy of Sciences, are used, then that's one thing, but if it's pseudo-scientific demagogic works like those of Sergey Kara-Murza (the older one) or "Why America Will Perish" - then it's something completely different.
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
Answering the question about sources: 1. Zdrov, "State Capitalism and Modernization in the USSR." 2. Zinoviev has many works, in particular "Catastroika," "The Collapse of Russian Communism." 3. Kagarlitsky, "Marxism. Not recommended for teaching." 4. Lenin, Collected Works. 5. Stalin, Collected Works. 6. World History, in particular volumes 9-13. 7. Numerous readily available sources online (if needed, I can provide specific links). 8. Materials from lectures on the history of the USSR by Doctors of Historical Sciences Kuznetsov, Isupov, and Solovyova. And there's no need to refer to the Academy of Sciences; they recommend many things, including Sakharov (read him; his errors are at the level of a 5th-grade student). Statistical information is readily available; I base my main conclusions on it, rather than on monographs, each of which has its own biases. Furthermore, I should mention that I specialize in a different period of history; the 20th century is a hobby. If you're interested, I can provide links to historians who specialize in this period. I haven't read Kara-Murza, I confess. And besides, there's no need to attribute things to me that I haven't said. I never claimed that everything was good in the USSR. There are plenty of critics without me; I only present alternative perspectives. If only praise were offered here, I would provide data on the shortcomings; I have that too.
By the way, I don't consider the USSR to be a paradise on earth, for example. But the fact that the situation has changed for the worse now is undeniable. In Soviet times, many talented people emigrated from the country (although many, no less talented, did not), and what about now? Now, almost all those who have truly achieved fame and fortune deserve it (that is, they are not corrupt politicians or untalented pop stars) are rushing to move permanently to more civilized and stable countries. While some forum users here praise our democratic state, everyone who can be in demand in the West is fleeing it. By the way, the current situation with the monument in Tallinn clearly shows how much weight Russia has on the political arena. We are nobody. And it pains me to understand this.
And there's no need to refer to the Academy of Sciences; they recommend many things, including Sakharov (read him; his writing contains errors at the level of a 5th-grade student).
Actually, it's worth it :) It's always useful to have something like an objective criterion :) - even if it's not always completely adequate. AlexeyPank;85655
Statistical information is readily available; I base my main conclusions on it, not on monographs, each of which has its own biases.
A sensible approach! Only, unfortunately, statistics also come from different sources... And are presented differently there, to my great regret. AlexeyPank;85655
I haven't honestly read Kara-Murza; I confess.
You haven't lost much:)AlexeyPank;85655
And besides, you shouldn't attribute things to me that I haven't said. I never claimed that everything was good in the USSR.
Yes, you just didn't say that anything was bad there... At least in the foreseeable forum past. AlexeyPank;85655
There are plenty of people who criticize things without me; I only present alternative perspectives. If everyone here was just praising things, I would present data on the shortcomings; I have that too.
And here we have a clear example of a sophism :) (in the understanding of Plato and Socrates). But in principle, the position is quite normal and understandable, and I am sure that many people often have to act the same way...
Added after 3 minutes Slonysh;85661
By the way, I don't consider the USSR a paradise on earth, for example. But the fact that the situation has changed for the worse now is undeniable. In Soviet times, many talented people emigrated from the country (although many, no less talented, did not emigrate), and now? Now, almost all those who have truly achieved fame and wealth deservedly (that is, not thieves-politicians and not talentless pop stars) are rushing to live permanently in more civilized and stable countries. While some forum members praise our democratic state, everyone who can be in demand in the West is fleeing it. By the way, the current story with the monument in Tallinn eloquently shows how much weight Russia has on the political arena. We are nobody. And it pains me to understand this.
Yes, that's right. But the alternative - personally for me - is even more repulsive. Total ideological control is terrible. Perhaps, in the provinces, it was not so overwhelming, but in Moscow - judging by the stories of all the people I know who lived in those years - it was something extraordinary. And the quality of life, again according to all my acquaintances, has improved fundamentally. Although, of course, there was no such strong and clearly expressed social stratification back then
AlexeyPank
19 years ago
Auto-translated
So, I use different statistics and look for the truth in my own way. I am always ready for a constructive dialogue; it's just that no one from the group of people who engage in arguments has provided any positive examples yet. Therefore, I will provide them. As a result, perhaps someone will read the thread and understand that there were at least two different versions of the USSR.
