5 ms·

It's frustrating to hear stories about writers under totalitarianism, not just because of the pervasive state oppression, but because not one of them will preve

It's frustrating to hear stories about writers under totalitarianism, not just because of the pervasive state oppression, but because not one of them will prevent it from rising again. Writers like Havel and Solzhenitsyn's work ostensibly contributed to the ending of the European totalitarian system, but only decades after it rose, and after those cultures were destroyed. I worked with people who left or escaped communism, and many had brought the indolent bureaucratic cynicism and shame of the societies broken by communism with them. It takes generations to recover. The necessary condition for it to prevail is when people (young men in particular) lose their sense of social identity and personal networks so that they are isolated from each other and can't get more than three to five together at once to privately share their experience of the movements infiltrating their communities. It's a playbook. If only we would treat writers today as the canaries in the coal mine for this same totalitarian force of history, and learn how urgent these lessons from the 20th century truly are.

sosull 6y ago
This is really insightful. I appreciate you taking the time to write it.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Ironically, a lot of artists who made reputations as dissidents chafing against a totalitarian regime, ultimately repudiated those dissident political views or even came to feel nostalgic for the Soviet regime specifically. Solzhenitsyn himself is famous for becoming a reactionary in later life and wanting heavy-headed leadership over his country, only this time it would supposedly be OK because it would be rooted in ancient Christian Russian culture and not the "godless, foreign" regime that was Communism for him.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union were very different beasts and to label them both as simply heavy-handed is to paint with far too wide a brush.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    I didn’t mention Tsarist Russia, because Solzhenitsyn wasn’t quite pining for that specifically, at least not in the form it took in its last few centuries. But the elderly Solzhenitsyn did see post-USSR Russia as beleaguered by enemies of the people, and he wanted those enemies dealt with decisively, even if it came to mass imprisonment and a return of censorship. This seemed to contradict the more open values that many saw in his early work.
    - vkou 6y ago
      He was also quite an anti-semite, so I don't think he's a great moral guide for anyone, despite the quality, and the importance of his work. His books are worth reading for everyone - not to take a piss on the USSR, but to think about the ways we are different, and more importantly, the ways we are similar to it.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  I have noticed a similar thing, and I wonder why it is. I have a few possible explanations, but no idea which one is correct. Maybe it's a combination: First option is that communist regimes ruin characters of many people, including those who try to fight against them. If you live a few decades in an oppresive regime where many things are forbidden... you get used to it, and then freedom feels scary. Even things that you hate can become a habit, and habits are difficult to change. When people leave a cult, they are also disoriented, and life outside feels scary. Second option is that fighting against the regime becomes a part of their identity. When the regime is over, for a short moment they feel like winners... and then life goes on, and they don't have new impressive things to offer, they are like monuments of history, irrelevant for today. So some of them try to criticize the new system, because "criticizing a system" is what they are famous for, but now it's awkward... because some people realize what they are doing, and others are just confused. Third option is that while in the West there seems to be mostly a linear political scale from conservatism to liberalism, in communist countries it becomes a triangle, with communism, religious conservatism, and liberalism/libertarianism as three deeply incompatible options. During the communist regime, the differences between conservatives and libertarians feel unimportant, because the first priority is to survive and hopefully overthrow their common enemy. Only after the victory, the former allies notice the deep differences between them, and both sides feel betrayed.
watwut 6y ago
> The necessary condition for it to prevail is when people (young men in particular) lose their sense of social identity and personal networks so that they are isolated from each other and can't get more than three to five together at once to privately share their experience of the movements infiltrating their communities. It's a playbook. You made up this part up and even got it opposite. If anything communism gave you more social outlet and company then capitalism. You was part of a group a lot more. A lot more was communal. Moreover, socially, family relationships were a lot more important for individuals. It lacked freedom. But it did not lacked company.
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  Might be true on the surface, but at least in East Germany, people were shocked/angry/surprised when they read their Stasi file and found out that within their small social circle there was usually at least one spook who reported them to the Stasi (so called 'IMs' - Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter) - often somebody they wouldn't have suspected or even considered a friend. You literally couldn't trust anyone, except maybe closest family.
  - watwut 6y ago
    But that had nothing to do with "can't get more than three to five together at once" or "young men loosing sense of social identity and personal networks". Even you said, "they were surprised" over it. And my point is that person I responded to is projecting supposed contemporary isolation on back then, so that he can draw equivalence. And that equivalence is faulty. (And likely just serves to reinforce whatever conspiracy theory.)
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      I agree with you with regard to the historical specifics; however, the point about intentionally fracturing communities and suppressing communication is consistent with authoritarian oppression of all kinds.
      - 6y ago
mrslave 6y ago
And what group identity do young people, or young males as you identify, have today? Sports teams, comic book movies, fancy sneakers, streaming subscriptions, fast food, alcohol, and video games. Group solidarity was destroyed and now every "community" is a virtual group of fan-based product consumers. Or possibly also - according to the news - an oppressed minority activist group. I don't see this as caused by or leading to totalitarianism, but I agree it is terrible.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  The larger risk - in my opinion - is that many of these communities (as much as they are) rely on communication channels that they cannot control (whether privately or publicly owned). Fracturing those communities is far easier and nearly cost free compared to interrupting in person communities (even as persistent surveillance makes in person communities easier to suppress).
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Something that never seemed to bubble up coherently in mainstream anti-capitalist discussions was whether there was a totalitarianized capitalism, which would have been a useful perspective, but I think progressive intellectuals of the 80's and 90's couldn't acknowledge totalitarianism as a thing because it undermined the certainty of their own narratives. They couldn't punch left, even if it was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other genocidieres, and that deprived them of a framework with a lot of predictive power. However, when viewed as what totalitarianism technically is - a movement that attacks truth itself with the objective of subjugating the individual human spirit and neutralizing all possible opposition, the cynical neo-liberals of the 90's would have qualified. Totalitarian movements use other factions and nations as vehicles, so that they used consumerism as a means to globalizing their ambitions is really secondary to what they meant to achieve. When I look at suddenly controversial and borderline dissident writers today like Matt Taibbi and Glen Greenwald, and even recently, Naomi Wolf, who seem to have defected from the progressive narrative, I think it's because they weren't "leftists," but in fact principled believers in truth and the human spirit, and against totalitarian movements. They aren't neutral or bi-partisan at all. They're a-partisan in that their objections today are against people and movements that make truth their target.
dmos62 6y ago
> movements infiltrating their communities That became very specific very fast. I don't think that negative things happen because of "movements" infiltrating "movementless" communities. Further, even if you take destructive movements towards oppression, limited identification, hatred, etc., I'd argue those are just symptoms of wider problems. Addressing them has its place, but, if that's all you do, it's like treating chronic mouth odour with tooth paste.
ppf 6y ago
Indeed, and the worldwide response to Covid has highlighted just how far down this path we have already come as a (Western) society. We already were a society of isolated, atomised, under-developed and ineffectual individuals, and that has only accelerated in the last year.

sosull 6y ago

This is really insightful. I appreciate you taking the time to write it.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

Ironically, a lot of artists who made reputations as dissidents chafing against a totalitarian regime, ultimately repudiated those dissident political views or even came to feel nostalgic for the Soviet regime specifically. Solzhenitsyn himself is famous for becoming a reactionary in later life and wanting heavy-headed leadership over his country, only this time it would supposedly be OK because it would be rooted in ancient Christian Russian culture and not the "godless, foreign" regime that was Communism for him.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union were very different beasts and to label them both as simply heavy-handed is to paint with far too wide a brush.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  I didn’t mention Tsarist Russia, because Solzhenitsyn wasn’t quite pining for that specifically, at least not in the form it took in its last few centuries. But the elderly Solzhenitsyn did see post-USSR Russia as beleaguered by enemies of the people, and he wanted those enemies dealt with decisively, even if it came to mass imprisonment and a return of censorship. This seemed to contradict the more open values that many saw in his early work.
  - vkou 6y ago
    He was also quite an anti-semite, so I don't think he's a great moral guide for anyone, despite the quality, and the importance of his work. His books are worth reading for everyone - not to take a piss on the USSR, but to think about the ways we are different, and more importantly, the ways we are similar to it.
Viliam1234 6y ago
I have noticed a similar thing, and I wonder why it is. I have a few possible explanations, but no idea which one is correct. Maybe it's a combination: First option is that communist regimes ruin characters of many people, including those who try to fight against them. If you live a few decades in an oppresive regime where many things are forbidden... you get used to it, and then freedom feels scary. Even things that you hate can become a habit, and habits are difficult to change. When people leave a cult, they are also disoriented, and life outside feels scary. Second option is that fighting against the regime becomes a part of their identity. When the regime is over, for a short moment they feel like winners... and then life goes on, and they don't have new impressive things to offer, they are like monuments of history, irrelevant for today. So some of them try to criticize the new system, because "criticizing a system" is what they are famous for, but now it's awkward... because some people realize what they are doing, and others are just confused. Third option is that while in the West there seems to be mostly a linear political scale from conservatism to liberalism, in communist countries it becomes a triangle, with communism, religious conservatism, and liberalism/libertarianism as three deeply incompatible options. During the communist regime, the differences between conservatives and libertarians feel unimportant, because the first priority is to survive and hopefully overthrow their common enemy. Only after the victory, the former allies notice the deep differences between them, and both sides feel betrayed.

watwut 6y ago

> The necessary condition for it to prevail is when people (young men in particular) lose their sense of social identity and personal networks so that they are isolated from each other and can't get more than three to five together at once to privately share their experience of the movements infiltrating their communities. It's a playbook. You made up this part up and even got it opposite. If anything communism gave you more social outlet and company then capitalism. You was part of a group a lot more. A lot more was communal. Moreover, socially, family relationships were a lot more important for individuals. It lacked freedom. But it did not lacked company.

flohofwoe 6y ago
Might be true on the surface, but at least in East Germany, people were shocked/angry/surprised when they read their Stasi file and found out that within their small social circle there was usually at least one spook who reported them to the Stasi (so called 'IMs' - Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter) - often somebody they wouldn't have suspected or even considered a friend. You literally couldn't trust anyone, except maybe closest family.
- watwut 6y ago
  But that had nothing to do with "can't get more than three to five together at once" or "young men loosing sense of social identity and personal networks". Even you said, "they were surprised" over it. And my point is that person I responded to is projecting supposed contemporary isolation on back then, so that he can draw equivalence. And that equivalence is faulty. (And likely just serves to reinforce whatever conspiracy theory.)
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    I agree with you with regard to the historical specifics; however, the point about intentionally fracturing communities and suppressing communication is consistent with authoritarian oppression of all kinds.
    - 6y ago

mrslave 6y ago

And what group identity do young people, or young males as you identify, have today? Sports teams, comic book movies, fancy sneakers, streaming subscriptions, fast food, alcohol, and video games. Group solidarity was destroyed and now every "community" is a virtual group of fan-based product consumers. Or possibly also - according to the news - an oppressed minority activist group. I don't see this as caused by or leading to totalitarianism, but I agree it is terrible.

germinalphrase 6y ago
The larger risk - in my opinion - is that many of these communities (as much as they are) rely on communication channels that they cannot control (whether privately or publicly owned). Fracturing those communities is far easier and nearly cost free compared to interrupting in person communities (even as persistent surveillance makes in person communities easier to suppress).
motohagiography 6y ago
Something that never seemed to bubble up coherently in mainstream anti-capitalist discussions was whether there was a totalitarianized capitalism, which would have been a useful perspective, but I think progressive intellectuals of the 80's and 90's couldn't acknowledge totalitarianism as a thing because it undermined the certainty of their own narratives. They couldn't punch left, even if it was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other genocidieres, and that deprived them of a framework with a lot of predictive power. However, when viewed as what totalitarianism technically is - a movement that attacks truth itself with the objective of subjugating the individual human spirit and neutralizing all possible opposition, the cynical neo-liberals of the 90's would have qualified. Totalitarian movements use other factions and nations as vehicles, so that they used consumerism as a means to globalizing their ambitions is really secondary to what they meant to achieve. When I look at suddenly controversial and borderline dissident writers today like Matt Taibbi and Glen Greenwald, and even recently, Naomi Wolf, who seem to have defected from the progressive narrative, I think it's because they weren't "leftists," but in fact principled believers in truth and the human spirit, and against totalitarian movements. They aren't neutral or bi-partisan at all. They're a-partisan in that their objections today are against people and movements that make truth their target.

dmos62 6y ago

> movements infiltrating their communities That became very specific very fast. I don't think that negative things happen because of "movements" infiltrating "movementless" communities. Further, even if you take destructive movements towards oppression, limited identification, hatred, etc., I'd argue those are just symptoms of wider problems. Addressing them has its place, but, if that's all you do, it's like treating chronic mouth odour with tooth paste.

ppf 6y ago

Indeed, and the worldwide response to Covid has highlighted just how far down this path we have already come as a (Western) society. We already were a society of isolated, atomised, under-developed and ineffectual individuals, and that has only accelerated in the last year.