8 ms·

The article mentions that the parents of the kids who grew up during the transition period were conservative and compliant and didn't make a fuss. They knew th

by mc32 5y ago

The article mentions that the parents of the kids who grew up during the transition period were conservative and compliant and didn't make a fuss. They knew the system was not great, but for them, it was what it was. There wasn't much to do but get on with life. The kids were different, they began to have access to cartoons and other cultural experiences from the West and began to question why they had to make do with so little (during Brezhnev's time, GDP went into guns and away from butter). In any event, why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system -a system which stunted their potential? Their "police" were soviet milicija, so in a way they lived under occupation to booot.

twelve40 5y ago
> during Brezhnev's time, GDP went into guns and away from butter The peak of shortages happened not during Brezhnev but in the 80's during Gorby's rule. > a system which stunted their potential Did launch man in space somehow. Plenty of people realized their potential.
- mc32 5y ago
  Stores had cigs, vodka, butter and milk and tubers (awesome!!) And so you stunt the growth not only of Russians but many other non-Russian nationalities so that a few scientists might have a summer dacha and a car and plane trips back to the city for wives to and fro the science town in nowheresville --while they are under threat to have their families sent to gulags if milestones aren't met... nice!
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    If you read Khalatnikov’s memoirs he realizes that whole country was turned into a gulag ostensibly for scientists’ sake and is remorseful of the fact
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"while they are under threat to have their families sent to gulags if milestones aren't met... nice!" It was true during Stalin. Not sure about Kruschev era laws. After that nobody would be sent to gulag for not meeting milestones so cut the bullshit. It is like segregation in the US. It was true until it was not. Or that women in Canada could be jailed in specialized jails (they were called differently) for being of wrong moral character. Not true anymore either.
  - artem247 5y ago
    >> Stores had cigs, vodka, butter and milk and tubers (awesome!!) Where do you get it from? Of course it depended on time and place, but you can buy a lot of stuff in Kyiv (for example) in 70's and 80's. Some things were 'deficit', but they were more of a luxury items. Also the quality was rather good, due to not having cost cutting. >> a few scientists might have a summer dacha Dachas were not exactly a sign of the elite. Cars, on the other hand... >> science town in nowheresville These things existed for some sort of top-secret military research, there were plenty of R&D labs in big cities for a more mundane subjects. You just have an axe to bury with communism, don't you?
VictorPath 5y ago
> In any event, why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system -a system which stunted their potential? Their "police" were soviet milicija They can be happy to live in the US and have police kneeling on their neck until they're dead.
- mc32 5y ago
  Don't swallow your contraband. In the US a callous cop gets tried and gets sent to prison. In the USSR you got taken around the back, shot in the head and dumped in a hole on the ground, or if slightly luckier you got a chance to freeze to death after the commander of the gulag had you tamp down the three foot snow for his truck to drive in in your ragged boots and in your escape attempt you get lost and starve and freeze to death a couple of miles away but the commander doesn’t bother with a search party knowing what your fate is.
  - skzv 5y ago
    It really hurts your credibility when you mix up distinct Soviet eras. The Gulag system began to be dismantled immediately upon Stalin's death and was fully dismantled by 1960.
    - wiseowise 5y ago
      Just because it began to dismantle it doesn't mean it was completely gone. Stories about KGB are popular for a reason, you know.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        By late USSR, the KGB wouldn't put a bullet in the back of your head, either. They'd hand you over to "experts" who would declare you insane and shove you into a straitjacket - and even that treatment was generally reserved for active dissidents. By the way, the police and the KGB often didn't get along. There was a famous case where a couple of cops who were very drunk robbed a high-ranking KGB official (he was carrying food from one of those "special" stores). When their senior found out, he decided that it'd be better to cover it up, and had the KGB guy killed and dumped the body in the woods. The KGB eventually unraveled the case - and many other similar ones, of cops partaking in robberies and beatings. (https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-12-26-%0A---war-of-the-worlds--40-years-ago--there-was-a-murder-in-moscow-at-zhdanovskaya%0A--.r1773epN6D.html https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-12-26-%0A---war-of-th...) So on the whole, I suspect you'd be far more likely to be brutalized by the Soviet cops than by KGB.
bruce511 5y ago
>> why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best system there is. For example; There exists a system where basic health issues can bankrupt you, where the police are above the law, where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns, where the courts are setup to protect the rich and powerful, where politicians can lie without consequence, that separates immigrant children (babies) from parents (and then has no way to reunite them), that has jailed over 1% of its population. Where people get no paid sick or holiday leave. Why would people feel happy about living under this oppressive system? Now you probably had some strong reactions to the question. And therein lies your answer. People everywhere, regardless of the system, believe what they are taught to belive, and they are taught that their existing way is the best.
- refurb 5y ago
  where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns Sounds kinda awesome to be honest.
  - vkou 5y ago
    And Soviet corruption sounded pretty awesome for my grand-uncle, and his children, grand-children, and various hangers-on. He had an incredibly lucrative career over his life, floating from one bit of graft to another (He continued to be quite successful at it long after the fall of communism, with his career peaking during an 'obscure' international sporting event that took place in Sochi in 2014). I'm sure it sounded less awesome to the people he hurt, but hey, it's all relative to where you stand, what you personally value, and how concerned about externalities.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Who are the people who own machine guns hurting?
      - vkou 5y ago
        An argument can easily be made that normalizing gun fetishism, and the prevalence of public carry leads to a society that, during tense situations is often a trigger pull away from escalating to immediately lethal violence. It's rare for people to get shot and killed at a, say, a political protest in a society without such norms. It's rarer yet for the killer to be found to have been in the right. You don't see teenagers in Canada think that it's a swell idea to drive across the country so that they could LARP Call of Duty at a protest with an AR-15. The two cultures' outlook on guns is different, and one very actively discourages that kind of behaviour... While the other one seems to encourage it.
wruza 5y ago
My grandma (born 1943, 30s in 1970s) says that these times were felt as very stable and carefree. She is a worker class which moved from Moscow to the East of Volga region at WW2, has a financial education and worked as an industrial accountant. Yes she was amazed in trips to Moscow and Eastern Europe, but she also never thought much of how to live a live. Nowadays she feels bad for us new citizens who must try hard to get even basic things. Most of older people in their 70’s I know personally are fond of these times, cause they felt “capitalism” on their own skin in the 90s. That regime solved all the issues any “honest worker” could have, and they weren’t ready or educated to solve them on their own. I know there is a survivorship bias and people who didn’t like it probably either not live here or are dead, but this is how people feel happy about living there. Personally I am not a travel-meet-talk-freedom guy (37yo) and wouldn’t mind living under such regime today, provided modern materials and products, e.g. China. I don’t see how my way of thinking or living would be any beneficial to me in “free western” countries, except maybe if I worked as an US military engineer or something like that, which isn’t realistic.
artem247 5y ago
>> (during Brezhnev's time, GDP went into guns and away from butter). Is there any empirical evidence supporting this? There were many improvements in the life typical citizen in the 1964-1982 era, a lot of better housing(which means more people were able to leave villages for cities, which had infinitely better infrastructure), in my city countless facilities were built in that era. >> The kids were different, they began to have access to cartoons and other cultural experiences from the West The cartoons mentioned in the article are Soviet cartoons. Access to Western 'cultural experiences' was more or less present from roughly death of Stalin to start of Perestroika. French films were frequently shown. I think after 1988 or so Western entertainment production flooded the Soviet Union. >> and began to question why they had to make do with so little That's an interesting take. For example, 'kids' in SU had access to free healthcare and higher education, and a better quality high schools, which the West didn't provide to it's citizens. And the WW2 devastated USSR and there was no Marshall plan. And, for example, Imperial Russia had GDP far below US at 1913 (So these countries were much poorer then the West to begin with) In any event, why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system -a system which stunted their potential? I don't think 'oppressive' system is something that has a clear meaning. There were restrictions on travel, on starting and owning the businesses, and political life was structured differently from representative democracy. For some people it was fine, for some it wasn't. As is the current marriage between capitalism and representative democracy. >> Their "police" were soviet milicija, so in a way they lived under occupation to booot. Baltic countries were indeed under occupation. They were integrated into Soviet union by military force, compared to other republics, which 'joined' the SU as a result of civil war. That explains that fervent Baltic anti-communism, because socialism was always something brought from abroad, from Russia, something basically not needed. "milicija" is just a term for police, so that has no relation to occupation.

by mc32 5y ago

twelve40 5y ago

> during Brezhnev's time, GDP went into guns and away from butter The peak of shortages happened not during Brezhnev but in the 80's during Gorby's rule. > a system which stunted their potential Did launch man in space somehow. Plenty of people realized their potential.

mc32 5y ago
Stores had cigs, vodka, butter and milk and tubers (awesome!!) And so you stunt the growth not only of Russians but many other non-Russian nationalities so that a few scientists might have a summer dacha and a car and plane trips back to the city for wives to and fro the science town in nowheresville --while they are under threat to have their families sent to gulags if milestones aren't met... nice!
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  If you read Khalatnikov’s memoirs he realizes that whole country was turned into a gulag ostensibly for scientists’ sake and is remorseful of the fact
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"while they are under threat to have their families sent to gulags if milestones aren't met... nice!" It was true during Stalin. Not sure about Kruschev era laws. After that nobody would be sent to gulag for not meeting milestones so cut the bullshit. It is like segregation in the US. It was true until it was not. Or that women in Canada could be jailed in specialized jails (they were called differently) for being of wrong moral character. Not true anymore either.
- artem247 5y ago
  >> Stores had cigs, vodka, butter and milk and tubers (awesome!!) Where do you get it from? Of course it depended on time and place, but you can buy a lot of stuff in Kyiv (for example) in 70's and 80's. Some things were 'deficit', but they were more of a luxury items. Also the quality was rather good, due to not having cost cutting. >> a few scientists might have a summer dacha Dachas were not exactly a sign of the elite. Cars, on the other hand... >> science town in nowheresville These things existed for some sort of top-secret military research, there were plenty of R&D labs in big cities for a more mundane subjects. You just have an axe to bury with communism, don't you?

VictorPath 5y ago

> In any event, why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system -a system which stunted their potential? Their "police" were soviet milicija They can be happy to live in the US and have police kneeling on their neck until they're dead.

mc32 5y ago
Don't swallow your contraband. In the US a callous cop gets tried and gets sent to prison. In the USSR you got taken around the back, shot in the head and dumped in a hole on the ground, or if slightly luckier you got a chance to freeze to death after the commander of the gulag had you tamp down the three foot snow for his truck to drive in in your ragged boots and in your escape attempt you get lost and starve and freeze to death a couple of miles away but the commander doesn’t bother with a search party knowing what your fate is.
- skzv 5y ago
  It really hurts your credibility when you mix up distinct Soviet eras. The Gulag system began to be dismantled immediately upon Stalin's death and was fully dismantled by 1960.
  - wiseowise 5y ago
    Just because it began to dismantle it doesn't mean it was completely gone. Stories about KGB are popular for a reason, you know.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      By late USSR, the KGB wouldn't put a bullet in the back of your head, either. They'd hand you over to "experts" who would declare you insane and shove you into a straitjacket - and even that treatment was generally reserved for active dissidents. By the way, the police and the KGB often didn't get along. There was a famous case where a couple of cops who were very drunk robbed a high-ranking KGB official (he was carrying food from one of those "special" stores). When their senior found out, he decided that it'd be better to cover it up, and had the KGB guy killed and dumped the body in the woods. The KGB eventually unraveled the case - and many other similar ones, of cops partaking in robberies and beatings. (https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-12-26-%0A---war-of-the-worlds--40-years-ago--there-was-a-murder-in-moscow-at-zhdanovskaya%0A--.r1773epN6D.html https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-12-26-%0A---war-of-th...) So on the whole, I suspect you'd be far more likely to be brutalized by the Soviet cops than by KGB.

bruce511 5y ago

>> why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system Because its the only system they know, and they've been told forever its the best system there is. For example; There exists a system where basic health issues can bankrupt you, where the police are above the law, where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns, where the courts are setup to protect the rich and powerful, where politicians can lie without consequence, that separates immigrant children (babies) from parents (and then has no way to reunite them), that has jailed over 1% of its population. Where people get no paid sick or holiday leave. Why would people feel happy about living under this oppressive system? Now you probably had some strong reactions to the question. And therein lies your answer. People everywhere, regardless of the system, believe what they are taught to belive, and they are taught that their existing way is the best.

refurb 5y ago
where citizens can, and do, buy machine guns Sounds kinda awesome to be honest.
- vkou 5y ago
  And Soviet corruption sounded pretty awesome for my grand-uncle, and his children, grand-children, and various hangers-on. He had an incredibly lucrative career over his life, floating from one bit of graft to another (He continued to be quite successful at it long after the fall of communism, with his career peaking during an 'obscure' international sporting event that took place in Sochi in 2014). I'm sure it sounded less awesome to the people he hurt, but hey, it's all relative to where you stand, what you personally value, and how concerned about externalities.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Who are the people who own machine guns hurting?
    - vkou 5y ago
      An argument can easily be made that normalizing gun fetishism, and the prevalence of public carry leads to a society that, during tense situations is often a trigger pull away from escalating to immediately lethal violence. It's rare for people to get shot and killed at a, say, a political protest in a society without such norms. It's rarer yet for the killer to be found to have been in the right. You don't see teenagers in Canada think that it's a swell idea to drive across the country so that they could LARP Call of Duty at a protest with an AR-15. The two cultures' outlook on guns is different, and one very actively discourages that kind of behaviour... While the other one seems to encourage it.

wruza 5y ago

My grandma (born 1943, 30s in 1970s) says that these times were felt as very stable and carefree. She is a worker class which moved from Moscow to the East of Volga region at WW2, has a financial education and worked as an industrial accountant. Yes she was amazed in trips to Moscow and Eastern Europe, but she also never thought much of how to live a live. Nowadays she feels bad for us new citizens who must try hard to get even basic things. Most of older people in their 70’s I know personally are fond of these times, cause they felt “capitalism” on their own skin in the 90s. That regime solved all the issues any “honest worker” could have, and they weren’t ready or educated to solve them on their own. I know there is a survivorship bias and people who didn’t like it probably either not live here or are dead, but this is how people feel happy about living there. Personally I am not a travel-meet-talk-freedom guy (37yo) and wouldn’t mind living under such regime today, provided modern materials and products, e.g. China. I don’t see how my way of thinking or living would be any beneficial to me in “free western” countries, except maybe if I worked as an US military engineer or something like that, which isn’t realistic.

artem247 5y ago

>> (during Brezhnev's time, GDP went into guns and away from butter). Is there any empirical evidence supporting this? There were many improvements in the life typical citizen in the 1964-1982 era, a lot of better housing(which means more people were able to leave villages for cities, which had infinitely better infrastructure), in my city countless facilities were built in that era. >> The kids were different, they began to have access to cartoons and other cultural experiences from the West The cartoons mentioned in the article are Soviet cartoons. Access to Western 'cultural experiences' was more or less present from roughly death of Stalin to start of Perestroika. French films were frequently shown. I think after 1988 or so Western entertainment production flooded the Soviet Union. >> and began to question why they had to make do with so little That's an interesting take. For example, 'kids' in SU had access to free healthcare and higher education, and a better quality high schools, which the West didn't provide to it's citizens. And the WW2 devastated USSR and there was no Marshall plan. And, for example, Imperial Russia had GDP far below US at 1913 (So these countries were much poorer then the West to begin with) In any event, why should people feel happy about living under an oppressive system -a system which stunted their potential? I don't think 'oppressive' system is something that has a clear meaning. There were restrictions on travel, on starting and owning the businesses, and political life was structured differently from representative democracy. For some people it was fine, for some it wasn't. As is the current marriage between capitalism and representative democracy. >> Their "police" were soviet milicija, so in a way they lived under occupation to booot. Baltic countries were indeed under occupation. They were integrated into Soviet union by military force, compared to other republics, which 'joined' the SU as a result of civil war. That explains that fervent Baltic anti-communism, because socialism was always something brought from abroad, from Russia, something basically not needed. "milicija" is just a term for police, so that has no relation to occupation.