Quote Originally Posted by joysof
Stalin took a personal, and oddly patriarchal interest in the affairs of various prominent artists, including Shostakovich, Pasternak and Bulgakov. In M.B.s case, they spoke on the telephone in April 1930, The Days of the Turbins was, as you said yourself, one of Koba's favourite plays, and Bulgakov was, by all accounts, closely watched throughout the 30s.
So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?

But another play, Ivan Vasilyevich, was certainly banned in 1936 after a Central Committee official visited a rehearsal.
Correct. Personally, again, I found this one shallow -- less shallow than the subsequent movie, though. Come to think of it, I do not like his plays, any of them. He wrote marvelous prose, no denying, but his theatrical works were a disaster. So... it might be that they were "suppressed" for some political reasons, I don't care. I will grant you that his novels were held back. They could not have been published even if the party had given a go. This has more to do with the psychology of the country back then than with anything else. This factor is always ignored by those critical of the USSR, and that only demonstrates how shallow their arguments are.

In 1917-1922, the country was suffering from the Civil War. That civil war was caused solely by ideological differences. In practical terms, it meant that the monarchists were killing those who said things different than they did, and the other parties, including the communists, were doing just the same. Say, do you seriously expect that those who finally prevailed in this slaughter would tolerate any dissidence? I say no, not while the memories were so vivid. It would have taken another generation. Which is exactly what happened. Is it different from any country that had a revolution? Perhaps you have no personal experience with people that have been through a revolution and a civil war. Neither have I. But I have experience with those who have been through German occupation. Even here in Western Europe the older generation stiffens when they hear German. And the Germans actually treated these countries quite gently! In Russia, and especially in Byelorussia, which suffered most, the reactions are significantly stronger. And this is after sixty years.

[quote:1djkq9j6]Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?
I would say that it was vibrant, if terrorised, during the 20s and 30s, and, yes, largely stagnant thereafter. Any oeuvre with Fadeev at it's head was bound to be. As for the scene nowadays, I wouldn't know, although I'm told that it's abject. But then I'm not defending 'now', I'm voicing concerns about 'then'.[/quote:1djkq9j6]

This thread is about the historical perspective. And given the perspective, which is the opposition of "now" and "then", even as regards "general" creativity, the USSR clearly had an edge over the modern Russian Federation (to say nothing of Uzbekistan and some other interesting countries).

[quote:1djkq9j6]Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal.
Don't know where to start with this one. Yes, I find child pornography distasteful, but not because it is illegal. To be quite honest, I find your brand of moral relativism quite obnoxious.[/quote:1djkq9j6]

Everything is relative. For example, to go fishing in the UK, you have to buy a license (if I'm not mistaken; if I am, take another suitable country). In Russia, you are free to catch almost anything you can without any stupid permit. But we were speaking about freedom of speech. You probably know that the only reason while pornography in general is alive and kicking in most countries in the world is because those countries believe in "freedom of speech", and the porno industry makes it understood in those countries that pornography is just "speech" (or media). But when it comes to child pornography, suddenly freedom of speech becomes limited. As it becomes when dealing with racism and so on. So it is not me who introduces this "moral relativism". It is just that some relativism is more relative than the others. Which is very archetypical when it comes to the USSR and Russia.

[quote:1djkq9j6]If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.
Which country? Don't understand.

In the Soviet Union, it was often extremely difficult to leave the country, wasn't it? Remember the refuseniki?[/quote:1djkq9j6]

How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?

[quote:1djkq9j6]You do not understand that when you mention Lenin and some events before 1924 you don't speak of the USSR, which is the topic of this thread.
Are you sure about your dates? From my humble reading I had gathered that the first USSR constitution was actually ratified in 1922, the year poor Marina left the country. I'm willing to stand corrected.[/quote:1djkq9j6]

According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.