4 ms·

> all the stuff about censorship and getting arrested for "treason" (basically for a political joke at the bar) hit too close to home for me, and I am from a fo

> all the stuff about censorship and getting arrested for "treason" (basically for a political joke at the bar) hit too close to home for me, and I am from a former Soviet block country, and I found those pieces very depressing. You may probably find it curious that Hashek ended up being a bolshevik and a red army commissar.

pdimitar 3y ago
I would never endorse this but I also kind of understand: it's very easy to switch sides when you're seeing your own government face-plant all the time and never get anything meaningful done. That's one of the ways the ruling class wins: a new "promising" system gets promoted, it points at the mistakes of the current system and the people, tired of all the crap, end up voting for the new stuff, only to discover it's even worse... :( That has happened quite a lot in history, sadly (also I am aware that in the case of the USSR there was no voting involved, it was just a figure of speech).
- avodonosov 3y ago
  In case of USSR the people were choosing sides of the civil war and fighting voluntarily - a more serious commitment than simply casting a ballot.
  - FpUser 3y ago
    Most of the people were not involved in fight. They were busy growing food for example. But sure the ones that actually fought did choose their sides voluntarily. Sometimes they flipped.
  - dragandj 3y ago
    In vast many cases they were either forcefully conscripted by whomever was holding power in the particular area, or were simply choosing to enter armies because they were very young people who lost everything and did not have many options. Do not also discount that during the post-revolution civil war, food shortages were the norm, and the place to eat is army.
    - avodonosov 3y ago
      I mean that the side winning a civil war probably needs to have a sufficient degree of public support. If enough people went as far as fighting voluntarily, then there was also a significant number who supported this side more passively. I am not a historian, but I think the society turned this way, in a sense. It's not like some external force coerced them, when everyone was against it. Hashek is an example. He was not forcefully conscripted, it was his choice. I've just recently listened to Kerensky's interview (the chairman of the Provisional Government that was ousted by the October Revolution in 1917). He was unable to gather any forces, no-one defended him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA225DBywU4&t=4842s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA225DBywU4&t=4842s (the interview is in Russian)
  - ihaveajob 3y ago
    If it was anything like the Spanish Civil War, lots of people just happened to live in an area that was controlled by one or another side. Those who were committed to their cause probably did their best to escape or take arms. Most were simply recruited and complied to avoid further trouble. Both my grandfathers happened to live on the side they disagreed with when hostilities started, so they had no choice.
duxup 3y ago
It's unfortunate but it's often the case when someone talks about a given ideal such as being critical of censorship, authoritarianism, etc. They often mean: "I don't like THAT censorship. Mine is fine."
int_19h 3y ago
He did a stint with the Bolsheviks, but abandoned them eventually - and this was before writing "Švejk", so that might have well factored into the latter.

pdimitar 3y ago

I would never endorse this but I also kind of understand: it's very easy to switch sides when you're seeing your own government face-plant all the time and never get anything meaningful done. That's one of the ways the ruling class wins: a new "promising" system gets promoted, it points at the mistakes of the current system and the people, tired of all the crap, end up voting for the new stuff, only to discover it's even worse... :( That has happened quite a lot in history, sadly (also I am aware that in the case of the USSR there was no voting involved, it was just a figure of speech).

avodonosov 3y ago
In case of USSR the people were choosing sides of the civil war and fighting voluntarily - a more serious commitment than simply casting a ballot.
- FpUser 3y ago
  Most of the people were not involved in fight. They were busy growing food for example. But sure the ones that actually fought did choose their sides voluntarily. Sometimes they flipped.
- dragandj 3y ago
  In vast many cases they were either forcefully conscripted by whomever was holding power in the particular area, or were simply choosing to enter armies because they were very young people who lost everything and did not have many options. Do not also discount that during the post-revolution civil war, food shortages were the norm, and the place to eat is army.
  - avodonosov 3y ago
    I mean that the side winning a civil war probably needs to have a sufficient degree of public support. If enough people went as far as fighting voluntarily, then there was also a significant number who supported this side more passively. I am not a historian, but I think the society turned this way, in a sense. It's not like some external force coerced them, when everyone was against it. Hashek is an example. He was not forcefully conscripted, it was his choice. I've just recently listened to Kerensky's interview (the chairman of the Provisional Government that was ousted by the October Revolution in 1917). He was unable to gather any forces, no-one defended him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA225DBywU4&t=4842s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA225DBywU4&t=4842s (the interview is in Russian)
- ihaveajob 3y ago
  If it was anything like the Spanish Civil War, lots of people just happened to live in an area that was controlled by one or another side. Those who were committed to their cause probably did their best to escape or take arms. Most were simply recruited and complied to avoid further trouble. Both my grandfathers happened to live on the side they disagreed with when hostilities started, so they had no choice.

duxup 3y ago

It's unfortunate but it's often the case when someone talks about a given ideal such as being critical of censorship, authoritarianism, etc. They often mean: "I don't like THAT censorship. Mine is fine."

int_19h 3y ago

He did a stint with the Bolsheviks, but abandoned them eventually - and this was before writing "Švejk", so that might have well factored into the latter.