4 ms·

Here in Czechia (not USSR but close), lot of older people long for the old days. They had one job for life, the state made sure. They had apartment or house, t

by glogla 5y ago

Here in Czechia (not USSR but close), lot of older people long for the old days. They had one job for life, the state made sure. They had apartment or house, the state made sure (if you were young family expecting child, they would just give you one). The wages and pensions were enough to live on, the state made sure. In their eyes, there were a lot less existential threats (like losing a job or the rent getting too high you lose place to live) than under the new regime, life was "fair", no fancy enterpreneurs making millions while working people struggle. Jumping to a world where nothing is certain and you're two bad months from homelessness after a lifetime of working was quite a shock for them. The message (however not all that real) of the old system was "we're all in this together" and the new one was "everyone for themselves, no caring about others" especially in the wild years after revolution. Some people are still sad about that. (They also turn to fascist and populist politicians now as a replacement which isn't great.)

uwagar 5y ago
what happens to artists/musicians/poets? did they have to work at a day job compulsorily to have wages/house/pension etc?
- glogla 5y ago
  As far as I know, the ones cozy with the regime were cared for (well beyond normal people) while underground artists worked odd jobs like night receptionists, janitors, boiler room operators or were in prison. (edit: also uranium mines for the ones who pissed off the state) Those tend to get overlooked by people longing for the old days.
  - uwagar 5y ago
    perhaps if the artist is cozy with the regime they cant be critical of the regime? can parents support their child that is an artist with their income? or the state knows everything about the artist (her age, fit to work so on) and will compulsorily draft them to work?
    - glogla 5y ago
      Young people were assigned jobs on finishing schooling. There was not much "looking for a job". Unless you had the right contacts, the closest thing to deciding where to work at was to pick a higher education - if you picked automotive engineering, you'd end up in a different place than if you picked medicine or something.
      - artem247 5y ago
        >> young people were assigned jobs on finishing schooling Could you provide evidence for this?
        ivas 5y ago
        "Job by distribution" was no secret and it is a well-known thing among people from post-soviet countries. Graduates were obliged to work at assigned place, usually for three years.
        glogla 5y ago
        It's hard to find English source. You could try machine translation of this wikipedia page [1] - but that says it was mandatory only in 1951 to 1959 and then it was changed to a recommendation. I know my uncle was supposed to go to one company but then that didn't work our for some reason and he had to look for a job himself, which was supposed to be rare. That would be early 1980s. [1]: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Um%C3%ADst%C4%9Bnka https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Um%C3%ADst%C4%9Bnka
    - ivas 5y ago
      It was illegal not to work in the Soviet Union. There was even a name for such people who weren't officially employed - "tuneyadets". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    For what it's worth, that's what the vast majority of artists do today. Spending most of your time and energy doing stuff that doesn't make money doesn't typically lead to a comfortable lifestyle.
  - artem247 5y ago
    Was Tarkovsky, for example, cozy with the regime? There were also a plenty of 'underground' artists, who had a day job of being a book illustrator, and did some stuff on the side, which they only would show to the close circle.
- petre 5y ago
  The artists were propaganda or workplace safety poster painters or they made statues of Lenin or of wartime heroes. The musicians were lucky enough to be able to play classical music but they also had to sing patriotic songs. The poets were either censored or had to write patriotic or propaganda pieces. Culture was ran by the state. Real literature like Roadside Picnic circulated undrground.
  - artem247 5y ago
    Well, first of all Roadside Picnic was actually published by the state. Then, the state funded a rather expensive Tarkovsky movie, inspired by the book ("Stalker"). I think I even had this book at parent's apartment. Plenty of Strugatsky's brothers novels were actually published by the state publishing houses. I think they ran into some problems with their more satirical pieces ("Tale of Troika" comes to mind, for example). Your description of artists' life is pretty simplistic and one-sided. There were some people who did propaganda posters, but there were many things that existed outside the political domain, from book illustrations, to paintings with less ideological overtones, to working in theater. There was also Soviet cinema and animation, which would hardly be seen as only a propaganda vehicle, there was a lot of very nuanced works, which raised important questions. A lot of good stuff was shelved, or circulated underground of course.
    - eternalban 5y ago
      Have you seen this film? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Look_Away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Look_Away It is an interesting film in general, and in context of your comment from the politics of art perspective -- it starts with a Nazi lecture on the "degenerate art" of 20s-30s, to art class lectures in Communist times, and ends with the equally ideological forces dictating "what's art" in West Germany (where are hero finally achieves fame and fortune.) It's East German variety of old regime/new regime but likely will resonate at some level.
    - type0 5y ago
      There's a great story about one writer, Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of We about the relation to the State ideology at the beginning of USSR and his subsequent emigration. The Russian Novel That Foresaw — but Underestimated — Totalitarianism https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/the-russian-novel-that-foresaw-but-underestimated-totalitarianism https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/the-russian-nove...
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Artists got paid to produce art, that was their day job. We all have family or friends who were artists before 89. The state arranged structures for artists to have jobs and even subsidised it strongly, so working people could afford to experience culture.

by glogla 5y ago

uwagar 5y ago

what happens to artists/musicians/poets? did they have to work at a day job compulsorily to have wages/house/pension etc?

glogla 5y ago
As far as I know, the ones cozy with the regime were cared for (well beyond normal people) while underground artists worked odd jobs like night receptionists, janitors, boiler room operators or were in prison. (edit: also uranium mines for the ones who pissed off the state) Those tend to get overlooked by people longing for the old days.
- uwagar 5y ago
  perhaps if the artist is cozy with the regime they cant be critical of the regime? can parents support their child that is an artist with their income? or the state knows everything about the artist (her age, fit to work so on) and will compulsorily draft them to work?
  - glogla 5y ago
    Young people were assigned jobs on finishing schooling. There was not much "looking for a job". Unless you had the right contacts, the closest thing to deciding where to work at was to pick a higher education - if you picked automotive engineering, you'd end up in a different place than if you picked medicine or something.
    - artem247 5y ago
      >> young people were assigned jobs on finishing schooling Could you provide evidence for this?
      - ivas 5y ago
        "Job by distribution" was no secret and it is a well-known thing among people from post-soviet countries. Graduates were obliged to work at assigned place, usually for three years.
      - glogla 5y ago
        It's hard to find English source. You could try machine translation of this wikipedia page [1] - but that says it was mandatory only in 1951 to 1959 and then it was changed to a recommendation. I know my uncle was supposed to go to one company but then that didn't work our for some reason and he had to look for a job himself, which was supposed to be rare. That would be early 1980s. [1]: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Um%C3%ADst%C4%9Bnka https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Um%C3%ADst%C4%9Bnka
  - ivas 5y ago
    It was illegal not to work in the Soviet Union. There was even a name for such people who weren't officially employed - "tuneyadets". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)
- pasabagi 5y ago
  For what it's worth, that's what the vast majority of artists do today. Spending most of your time and energy doing stuff that doesn't make money doesn't typically lead to a comfortable lifestyle.
- artem247 5y ago
  Was Tarkovsky, for example, cozy with the regime? There were also a plenty of 'underground' artists, who had a day job of being a book illustrator, and did some stuff on the side, which they only would show to the close circle.
petre 5y ago
The artists were propaganda or workplace safety poster painters or they made statues of Lenin or of wartime heroes. The musicians were lucky enough to be able to play classical music but they also had to sing patriotic songs. The poets were either censored or had to write patriotic or propaganda pieces. Culture was ran by the state. Real literature like Roadside Picnic circulated undrground.
- artem247 5y ago
  Well, first of all Roadside Picnic was actually published by the state. Then, the state funded a rather expensive Tarkovsky movie, inspired by the book ("Stalker"). I think I even had this book at parent's apartment. Plenty of Strugatsky's brothers novels were actually published by the state publishing houses. I think they ran into some problems with their more satirical pieces ("Tale of Troika" comes to mind, for example). Your description of artists' life is pretty simplistic and one-sided. There were some people who did propaganda posters, but there were many things that existed outside the political domain, from book illustrations, to paintings with less ideological overtones, to working in theater. There was also Soviet cinema and animation, which would hardly be seen as only a propaganda vehicle, there was a lot of very nuanced works, which raised important questions. A lot of good stuff was shelved, or circulated underground of course.
  - eternalban 5y ago
    Have you seen this film? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Look_Away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Look_Away It is an interesting film in general, and in context of your comment from the politics of art perspective -- it starts with a Nazi lecture on the "degenerate art" of 20s-30s, to art class lectures in Communist times, and ends with the equally ideological forces dictating "what's art" in West Germany (where are hero finally achieves fame and fortune.) It's East German variety of old regime/new regime but likely will resonate at some level.
  - type0 5y ago
    There's a great story about one writer, Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of We about the relation to the State ideology at the beginning of USSR and his subsequent emigration. The Russian Novel That Foresaw — but Underestimated — Totalitarianism https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/the-russian-novel-that-foresaw-but-underestimated-totalitarianism https://www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/the-russian-nove...
lucian1900 5y ago
Artists got paid to produce art, that was their day job. We all have family or friends who were artists before 89. The state arranged structures for artists to have jobs and even subsidised it strongly, so working people could afford to experience culture.