5 ms·

I was born in communist Romania, and what he said is spot on. We called it "relations" (not in a familial sense), and you literally used them to do everything,

I was born in communist Romania, and what he said is spot on. We called it "relations" (not in a familial sense), and you literally used them to do everything, including getting a passport or going to the hospital. Even basic shopping was a function of "relations". For example as a kid I was surprised to find out that the bakery occasionally gave people half-breads (half a bread or a bread and a half and so on), because we always got as much as we needed, never portions. Because relations.

smallnamespace 10y ago
China isn't Romania though. The Communists in China were actually markedly less corrupt than the Nationalist officials they replaced, and in fact the corruption of the Nationalist administration was one reason they lost the Civil War. Remember that China was still basically a pre-industrial nation in 1949 -- it's hard to have impartial, clean institutions in a nation of China's size without modern communications and mass culture. I'm pretty sure Romania was a more modern place than China was before WW2, so imposing a Communist system was a step backwards, but that doesn't generalize to China's experience.
- varjag 10y ago
  Another guy grown in Soviet bloc here. All former Marxist cultures, no matter geography and prior history, share a substantial legacy in culture, behaviour and psychology. I would know how to get to the bottom of things in Cuba. Transplant a person from communist Albania into North Korea, and sans the linguistic and culinary* difference they'll find themselves at home. So yes, Romanian experience is very relatable to this aspect of China. [*] i.e. which unobtainable food items are coveted most.
  - MichaelMoser123 10y ago
    i was told by a guy from ex-Czechoslovakia that he could tell a joke from his place to a person from China - it would still seem funny to both of them because of the shared cultural norms. The funny thing is that all communist countries used to be very bureaucratic; however Max Weber says that there is a blessing in bureaucracy - it is supposed to be impersonal, so in theory it should be objective and be able to ignore personal biases/preferences, provided that you just stick to the procedures. Now Guanxi seems to take the better of that theory.
    - varjag 10y ago
      True. We even had a different concepts of travel. Trips to Socialist block friends were valuable; you'd have a chance to buy some deficit things yet you knew it's not really abroad. Tours to "Capitalist countries" (i.e. rest of the world, ranging from the USA to Bangladesh) however were like oral sex to a Catholic priest: rare chance to see sinister but attractive world, and raise your social status among the peers for rest of your life. > Max Weber says that there is a blessing of bureaucracy - it is supposed to be impersonal, so in theory it should be objective and just ignore personal biases/preferences provided that you stick to the procedures. Oddly enough it was bureaucracy that was cementing life order in socialist bloc in identical way, and Guanxi/personal corruption is a manifestation of it. This really stems as consequence of implementation of Marxist tenets and I maintain is deterministic and unavoidable. It seems many can't really comprehend how big a footprint Communist effort leaves after its gone. Historic and cultural continuity is typically destroyed or at least mauled. All ex-communist countries have shared experience in the same way all rape victims regardless background have it.
- radu_floricica 10y ago
  > I'm pretty sure Romania was a more modern place than China was before WW2, so imposing a Communist system was a step backwards My father would strongly disagree. Communists paid for his education from elementary school and up to college, and made sure he didn't end up doing small scale agriculture like his parents and grandparents. Before 1940 Romania did have some industry, capital and civilization, true. But if counted by either population or area, a supermajority was simply subsistence agriculture. Communists razed it down, built industry and mechanized agriculture in its place, and crammed people into cities and towns. I'd guess that up to the early 70s it was actually a force for progress, even if only for breaking up old power structures. After that it was the usual trade-off - less appliances, electronics and luxury goods, but a more relaxed and secure life style. Until 1980, when rumor has it that Ceausescu visited North Korea and fell in love with it. After that things changed, he pushed strongly for full debt payment, and the population suffered.
hyh1048576 10y ago
You certainly get what I'm talking about, comrade.

smallnamespace 10y ago

China isn't Romania though. The Communists in China were actually markedly less corrupt than the Nationalist officials they replaced, and in fact the corruption of the Nationalist administration was one reason they lost the Civil War. Remember that China was still basically a pre-industrial nation in 1949 -- it's hard to have impartial, clean institutions in a nation of China's size without modern communications and mass culture. I'm pretty sure Romania was a more modern place than China was before WW2, so imposing a Communist system was a step backwards, but that doesn't generalize to China's experience.

varjag 10y ago
Another guy grown in Soviet bloc here. All former Marxist cultures, no matter geography and prior history, share a substantial legacy in culture, behaviour and psychology. I would know how to get to the bottom of things in Cuba. Transplant a person from communist Albania into North Korea, and sans the linguistic and culinary* difference they'll find themselves at home. So yes, Romanian experience is very relatable to this aspect of China. [*] i.e. which unobtainable food items are coveted most.
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  i was told by a guy from ex-Czechoslovakia that he could tell a joke from his place to a person from China - it would still seem funny to both of them because of the shared cultural norms. The funny thing is that all communist countries used to be very bureaucratic; however Max Weber says that there is a blessing in bureaucracy - it is supposed to be impersonal, so in theory it should be objective and be able to ignore personal biases/preferences, provided that you just stick to the procedures. Now Guanxi seems to take the better of that theory.
  - varjag 10y ago
    True. We even had a different concepts of travel. Trips to Socialist block friends were valuable; you'd have a chance to buy some deficit things yet you knew it's not really abroad. Tours to "Capitalist countries" (i.e. rest of the world, ranging from the USA to Bangladesh) however were like oral sex to a Catholic priest: rare chance to see sinister but attractive world, and raise your social status among the peers for rest of your life. > Max Weber says that there is a blessing of bureaucracy - it is supposed to be impersonal, so in theory it should be objective and just ignore personal biases/preferences provided that you stick to the procedures. Oddly enough it was bureaucracy that was cementing life order in socialist bloc in identical way, and Guanxi/personal corruption is a manifestation of it. This really stems as consequence of implementation of Marxist tenets and I maintain is deterministic and unavoidable. It seems many can't really comprehend how big a footprint Communist effort leaves after its gone. Historic and cultural continuity is typically destroyed or at least mauled. All ex-communist countries have shared experience in the same way all rape victims regardless background have it.
radu_floricica 10y ago
> I'm pretty sure Romania was a more modern place than China was before WW2, so imposing a Communist system was a step backwards My father would strongly disagree. Communists paid for his education from elementary school and up to college, and made sure he didn't end up doing small scale agriculture like his parents and grandparents. Before 1940 Romania did have some industry, capital and civilization, true. But if counted by either population or area, a supermajority was simply subsistence agriculture. Communists razed it down, built industry and mechanized agriculture in its place, and crammed people into cities and towns. I'd guess that up to the early 70s it was actually a force for progress, even if only for breaking up old power structures. After that it was the usual trade-off - less appliances, electronics and luxury goods, but a more relaxed and secure life style. Until 1980, when rumor has it that Ceausescu visited North Korea and fell in love with it. After that things changed, he pushed strongly for full debt payment, and the population suffered.

hyh1048576 10y ago

You certainly get what I'm talking about, comrade.