4 ms·

I mean, it's only appealing to those of us not living under an oppressive regime. If I were in Stalinist Russia I would have been in no mood to appreciate that

by arjie 9y ago

I mean, it's only appealing to those of us not living under an oppressive regime. If I were in Stalinist Russia I would have been in no mood to appreciate that style.

ivan_gammel 9y ago
That style was designed specifically to make people appreciate it, to feel the sense of people's victory over fascism and relief from the Great Patriotic War, so if you would live in 1950s, it's quite possible that you'd be impressed and like it.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
Some people thrived under Stalinist Russia, and many that didn't at least felt a sort of security. There are people alive who pine for it, much like some people who spent decades in prison miss it, due to alienation from the outside world.
vkou 9y ago
If you lived through Russia in the unmitigated disaster that was the 90s, you might be nostalgic for the good old days. America currently incarcerates almost as many people (Depending on how you count, more) as the Khrushchev era did, yet that's clearly not the biggest factor in how people evaluate their quality of life. Most of all, people want food, shelter, and security - and communism largely provided that. Poorly, but better then the collapse that followed.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  Well, it was an inevitable ending to communist experiment, I would say baked in from the beginning. The real tragedy that the whole communism thing even happened. Some people also want dignity. That thing was in short supply back then and is getting thin today.
  - vkou 9y ago
    The real tragedy was the system prior to communism, during communism, and after communism. Tsarist Russia was highly, and poorly centrally planned, and incredibly backwards. It ended serfdom in 1861, for Pete's sakes. The first world war demonstrated exactly how broken that system was. Market reforms, on the other hand, inflicted immense amounts of suffering on the population, particularly segments of the population that were unable to work. (But, as with every economic system, market advocates only want to take credit for successes.) Falling from its position as a super-power to a back-water second-world state was also a huge blow to national dignity. In case you're wondering why Russians are largely supportive of Putin's aggression, its because they see him as restoring said national dignity. It's the story of Trump's deplorables writ large.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      >Market reforms, on the other hand, inflicted immense amounts of suffering on the population, particularly segments of the population that were unable to work. That's like saying impact inflicts enormous amounts of suffering for people who are falling through the air. The market reforms were painful because there was no other option after the mess that communism made.
      - thriftwy 9y ago
        Well, I think we could go without hyperinflation and voucher privatization. It would still be pretty bad, sure. Most of Soviet enterprises will go belly up either way. Even in the USA the rust belt suffered during that time. And Russia was basically one big rust belt.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      Incredibly backwards compared to what? To France, sure. To the USA, probably. But if you will take Ottoman Empire or China, Russian Empire doesn't look that backwards. Could certainly expect better outcome than the ragged, crumbling nation we have today. If not for communism which was a deeply unnatural state for a human being to live in. You know, "national dignity" is often looked for by people when their regular dignity (family, job and standing in society) fails. And then people can't really use it in healthy way. "They had fear of us", they say nostalgically. What's good in that? What about money, quality of life, freedom of movement for god's sake? What of that did Soviet Russia have? Even Warsaw Pact countries, even Soviet republic on outskirts (think Georgia) enjoyed more freedom, better quality of life and longer life expectancy.
- Sommersonn 9y ago
  "Most of all, people want food, shelter, and security" No personal freedoms at all? You know, you've just described a simple prison.

by arjie 9y ago

I mean, it's only appealing to those of us not living under an oppressive regime. If I were in Stalinist Russia I would have been in no mood to appreciate that style.

ivan_gammel 9y ago

That style was designed specifically to make people appreciate it, to feel the sense of people's victory over fascism and relief from the Great Patriotic War, so if you would live in 1950s, it's quite possible that you'd be impressed and like it.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

Some people thrived under Stalinist Russia, and many that didn't at least felt a sort of security. There are people alive who pine for it, much like some people who spent decades in prison miss it, due to alienation from the outside world.

vkou 9y ago

If you lived through Russia in the unmitigated disaster that was the 90s, you might be nostalgic for the good old days. America currently incarcerates almost as many people (Depending on how you count, more) as the Khrushchev era did, yet that's clearly not the biggest factor in how people evaluate their quality of life. Most of all, people want food, shelter, and security - and communism largely provided that. Poorly, but better then the collapse that followed.

thriftwy 9y ago
Well, it was an inevitable ending to communist experiment, I would say baked in from the beginning. The real tragedy that the whole communism thing even happened. Some people also want dignity. That thing was in short supply back then and is getting thin today.
- vkou 9y ago
  The real tragedy was the system prior to communism, during communism, and after communism. Tsarist Russia was highly, and poorly centrally planned, and incredibly backwards. It ended serfdom in 1861, for Pete's sakes. The first world war demonstrated exactly how broken that system was. Market reforms, on the other hand, inflicted immense amounts of suffering on the population, particularly segments of the population that were unable to work. (But, as with every economic system, market advocates only want to take credit for successes.) Falling from its position as a super-power to a back-water second-world state was also a huge blow to national dignity. In case you're wondering why Russians are largely supportive of Putin's aggression, its because they see him as restoring said national dignity. It's the story of Trump's deplorables writ large.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >Market reforms, on the other hand, inflicted immense amounts of suffering on the population, particularly segments of the population that were unable to work. That's like saying impact inflicts enormous amounts of suffering for people who are falling through the air. The market reforms were painful because there was no other option after the mess that communism made.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      Well, I think we could go without hyperinflation and voucher privatization. It would still be pretty bad, sure. Most of Soviet enterprises will go belly up either way. Even in the USA the rust belt suffered during that time. And Russia was basically one big rust belt.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    Incredibly backwards compared to what? To France, sure. To the USA, probably. But if you will take Ottoman Empire or China, Russian Empire doesn't look that backwards. Could certainly expect better outcome than the ragged, crumbling nation we have today. If not for communism which was a deeply unnatural state for a human being to live in. You know, "national dignity" is often looked for by people when their regular dignity (family, job and standing in society) fails. And then people can't really use it in healthy way. "They had fear of us", they say nostalgically. What's good in that? What about money, quality of life, freedom of movement for god's sake? What of that did Soviet Russia have? Even Warsaw Pact countries, even Soviet republic on outskirts (think Georgia) enjoyed more freedom, better quality of life and longer life expectancy.
Sommersonn 9y ago
"Most of all, people want food, shelter, and security" No personal freedoms at all? You know, you've just described a simple prison.