Thread: "Cold" War: Who was the winner?

The HRW are liars.

I'll take their word over your 'experience', if you don't mind.

I bet the Chinees reality is not much worse.

Oh, you 'bet', do you? Smacks of speculation to me. Do your research.

Originally Posted by TronDD

Originally Posted by bad manners

How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?

It's not that it is disallowed, it is stiffled.

If everyone recieves equal share of the nation's resources, there is no motivation to try hard.

Why am I trying hard here to help you and the others to learn Russian?

Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?

The fantasy of Communism is that people will work hard for the good of the community but that just doesn't happen.

Of course it does not, when the most powerful country in the world and her satellites spend fifty years doing everything to counter that.

And, BTW, Democracy is not the opposite of Communism. Laise-faire Capitalim is.

You should have told that to Dynamo.

Originally Posted by joysof

The HRW are liars.

I'll take their word over your 'experience', if you don't mind.

Why, if you don't mind? Because the name of that organization is more democratic? Or because the speculations of that organization fit your perception of China? Which are formed by the speculations of the equally democratic media?

Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?

No, of course he didn't. He did, however, find himself in Gorky/Nizhny Novgorod against his will.

Does that not constitute suppression?

How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?

Mandelstam paid for a poem with his life; Tsvetaeva was forbidden to publish; Bulgakov had most of his plays suppressed and his best work wasn't published until long after his death. If you want more examples, I'll provide them: there are hundreds, after all.

Taken together, all of these things would seem to serve as a disincentive to unorthodoxy, and, tangentially, creativity.

Why, if you don't mind? Because the name of that organization is more democratic?

Simple: because, as far as I can tell, Human Rights Watch has no ideological axe to grind. This sets it apart from JJ, who seems hell-bent on assuming the mantle of apologist for Soviet Communism.

Originally Posted by joysof

Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?

No, of course he didn't. He did, however, find himself in Gorky/Nizhny Novgorod against his will.

Does that not constitute suppression?

Did I ever ask anything about suppression? In this thread anyway? The question was about "communism does not motivate" and you failed to answer that question.

[quote:3b6tafj8]How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?

Mandelstam paid for a poem with his life;[/quote:3b6tafj8]

If I remember correctly, his poem was highly anti-Soviet (using the terminology of that time), and that was explicitly forbidden. The criminal code had an article dealing with just that. Dura lex sed lex.

Tsvetaeva was forbidden to publish

Hello? She left the USSR in 1925 and returned in 1939, and committed suicide in 1941. If she was not published during the two years (and what years!) she spent there, that hardly means anything.

Bulgakov had most of his plays suppressed and his best work wasn't published until long after his death.

Which plays were suppressed? His best work, which you apparently think was M&M, was never published -- but it was never finished either. He died editing it. Of the finished works, I personally prefer "The White Guards", and it was published, moreover, he made a play after it, and it was a success. Stalin himself liked it, could it be more successful than that in the thirties?

If you want more examples, I'll provide them: there are hundreds, after all.

Yeah, go ahead.

Taken together, all of these things would seem to serve as a disincentive to unorthodoxy, and, tangentially, creativity.

Granted. Unorthodoxy was not welcome (is it anywhere?). However, you're going off the tangent yourself. I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.

Originally Posted by joysof

Simple: because, as far as I can tell, Human Rights Watch has no ideological axe to grind.

You made me laugh so hard I almost choked. No really! The very doctrine of "Human Rights" is ideology and nothing but ideology.

Did I ever ask anything about suppression?

You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. As far as I can see, the 'disallowing' of creativity is suppression.

However, you're going off the tangent yourself.I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.

You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. It seemed, generally speaking, such a stupid question that I thought I would deal with it by reference to a sphere of creativity about which I have some knowledge. Economics isn't my strong point.

Which plays were suppressed?

'Moliere', 'Flight' and 'Adam and Eve' were kept off the stage during the 30s, and were not published until after M.B's death.

His best work, which you apparently think was M&M, was never published -- but it was never finished either.

Never published? I have two copies on my bookshelf.

As far as I remember, his longer prose works - including M&M - were published in the Soviet Union in the 60s. My favourite, perverse as I am, is his Theatrical Novel.

If I remember correctly, his poem was highly anti-Soviet (using the terminology of that time), and that was explicitly forbidden.

Something about cockroaches and mountaineers, I think . Of course it was anti-Soviet, but if critical words are 'explicitly forbidden', isn't creativity being disallowed?

Dura lex sed lex.

More like lex iniusta.

Hello? She left the USSR in 1925 and returned in 1939, and committed suicide in 1941.

Hi. She actually left in 1922. A minor detail. More important: why should someone as brilliant as Tsvetaeva have felt unable to practise her craft in the Soviet Union?

You made me laugh so hard I almost choked. No really! The very doctrine of "Human Rights" is ideology and nothing but ideology.

You're going to have to explain that one to me. Sounds a little...partisan.

Take, for example, hockey in the U.S.S.R. and now Russia. In the U.S.S.R., all the talented hockey players were taken by CSKA, the Red Army Team, and, to a lesser degree, Dynamo Moscow, but mainly CSKA. There players were taught hockey skills and were severely punished, sometimes even killed, if they did not perform well enough for the coach, Victor Tikhonov. The players were conscripted into the Soviet military as a way of controlling them, and few of the players ever got any military training at all. Once the players were soldiers of the U.S.S.R., the government could control every aspect of their lives, and did so regularly. Now, after the fall of the Soviet Union, things are supposed to be different. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. Just recently, a hockey player named Nikolai Zherdev left Russia for the USA to play in the best hockey league in the world, the NHL. He had a contract with an NHL team, the Columbus Blue Jackets, which he had signed just shortly after he was drafted into the NHL. But the Russian hockey authorities claim that he is a soldier on the Russian military. They claim to have papers proving this, including a military ID card. Zherdev says that he has never recieved any military traing, has never worn a uniform, and has never taken the oath of duty. Zherdev was also not even a Russian, he was born in Ukraine. After he left Russia, Zherdev's former coach, Victor Tikhonov--yes, the same guy again--claimed that Zherdev had deserted his country, his team, and his military duty, which is compulsory in Russia. If zherdev was indeed in the Russian military, he was placed there so keep him in Russia and under the control of Russian authorities. The dirty little secret of all this is the payoffs that NHL teams have to give Russian teams to buy the players out of military duty. So, then, this whole thing is about money and control. NHL teams have to pay many times more than the agreed on fee to even get the players over to the U.S. The players are only in the military for control. And the "compulsory" military duty is not even emposed uniformly, only in selected cases the Russians think they can get away with. Another Russian player, Ilya Kovalchuk, who is now playing in the NHL, certainly had nothing to do with the Russian military. there are about 100 other Russian players playing in North America and Canada that were never in the military.
Things are obviously not altogether fixed yet in Russia. Russia clearly is not yet a "normal" country. Another example would be the recent Presidential election in Russia.

Originally Posted by joysof

Did I ever ask anything about suppression?

You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. As far as I can see, the 'disallowing' of creativity is suppression.

You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.

[quote:1ydtvu1p]However, you're going off the tangent yourself.I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.

You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. It seemed, generally speaking, such a stupid question that I thought I would deal with it by reference to a sphere of creativity about which I have some knowledge. Economics isn't my strong point.[/quote:1ydtvu1p]

I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.

[quote:1ydtvu1p]Which plays were suppressed?

'Moliere'[/quote:1ydtvu1p]

Nope. The premi

Originally Posted by Dynamo

{lots of irrelevant stuff}

What does that have to do with creativity? Hockey? Ask me if I care about hockey.

But you're trying to distort even that. Military service is not "selectively" compulsory in Russia. If there are no medical problems, and I suppose a good hockey player must have none, the only way for him to avoid being drafted is by starting university studies, or, if he has graduated, a PhD thesis. I do not think this hockey guy ever did so. Alternatively, he might avoid military service by having a couple of new born babies, or having disabled parents. And finally a person may be excluded by a presidential decree. Admittedly, lots of Russian men manage to evade the service, but they violate the law.

Secondly, the CSKA does not "take" anybody. CSKA stands for "Central Combined Club of the Army", and the players must be drafted before they can join the club. And normally they are trained before they join the army, in some junior school sponsored by CSKA.

So what happened is simple. The guy was trained, for free, in a junior school, then drafted and trained, again for free, by the Army. Then the guy decides to say good-bye and earn some money on the side. He is still in service and what he does is called desertion.

As for the presidential election... let's compare it with the nonsense that happened in Florida last time.

You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.

I thought he was pretty naive too.

I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.

You need to express yourself more clearly, then. When you ask 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?' (not 'economic creativity'), you leave yourself open to attack from all quarters.

Nope. The premiere was on 16-Feb-1936.

I never said they were kept off the stage altogether during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.

Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.

Oh, I see, you don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed.

What sort of argument is that?

So they were published in the end.

After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?

What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.

What is this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?

She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.

Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.

Anyway, that's a cheap shot and beside the point. From Tsvetaeva to Berdyaev and the Nabokovs, great people left (or were forced out) in droves. Russia under both Ulyanov and Dzhugashvili was, regardless of its more serious atrocities, a climate deeply hostile to creativity.

Explain what?

The 'ideology' of human rights, perhaps?

Originally Posted by joysof

Explain what?

The 'ideology' of human rights, perhaps?

May I explain? HR is an ideology and it's a totalitarian ideology. There are some characteristics of totalitarian ideology:
1. It based on beleif in some irrational ideas. - Why do you think that human's rights should be the same for all cultures and social systems?
2. Proclaim these ideas as established truth.
3. Negative attitude to another ideas - You gave me a link about China, where the Chinese conception of HR is diffrent, so the HRW treat it bad.
4. The followers of totalitarian ideology always gather to organized groups.
HRW corresponds to all characteristics. - At least in Russia there is a group of human's right watchers - Novodvorskaya, Kovalyev etc.

HR is an ideology

Fair enough. An ideology is a body of beliefs.

and it's a totalitarian ideology

Nonsense. All of the features of 'HR' (do you mean Human Rights Watch in particular or human rights in general?) you supply as justification for this statement - belief in inalienable truths, opposition to those who think differently, an organisational structure (!)- could apply to any political party, trade union, ornithological society, or the Rotary Club. None of them denote totalitarianism. Restrictions on press freedom, state-sanctioned denigration of political unorthodoxy, a lack of due process in the legal system and the existence of labour camps are what I think of when the T-word is mentioned and as far as I can tell, no human rights organisation practises any of these things. All, however, are features of the current regime in Beijing.

Originally Posted by joysof

You need to express yourself more clearly, then. When you ask 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?' (not 'economic creativity'), you leave yourself open to attack from all quarters.

The message that you replied to did not have such questions. Learn to answer questions and not questions to answers to questions.

I never said they were kept off the stage altogether during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.

I recall that he developed a sort of personal problem with the director (Stanislavsky) and the director simply refused to continue working on it. Which does not surprise me at all, because there is voluminous evidence that Bulgakov was very arrogant and cooperated poorly.

Oh, and if you believe that Stalin kept an eye on every single person in the USSR and Bulgakov in particular, you ought to reconsider. The only case when Stalin intervened was when Bulgakov had managed to piss off the whole theater and was fired. Thanks to Stalin he was employed again. Do you expect Stalin would have mothered him forever?

[quote:2behx1op]Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.

Oh, I see, you don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed.

What sort of argument is that?[/quote:2behx1op]

I'm saying that they could be left unpublished or unstaged because they were just bad.

[quote:2behx1op]So they were published in the end.

After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?[/quote:2behx1op]

Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?

[quote:2behx1op]What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.

What is this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?[/quote:2behx1op]

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. If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.

[quote:2behx1op]She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.

Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.[/quote:2behx1op]

Invading Poland, waging a war with Finland, conducting a coup d'

The message that you replied to did not have such questions. Learn to answer questions and not questions to answers to questions.

That's an extremely iffy technicality.

Oh, and if you believe that Stalin kept an eye on every single person in the USSR and Bulgakov in particular, you ought to reconsider.

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.

there is voluminous evidence that Bulgakov was very arrogant and cooperated poorly.

No arguments here, although I would say neurotic rather than arrogant.
Paranoid, too - although that's hardly surprising.

I'm saying that they could be left unpublished or unstaged because they were just bad.

Could have been. Don't have any facts on that. But another play, Ivan Vasilyevich, was certainly banned in 1936 after a Central Committee official visited a rehearsal.

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 its 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'.

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.

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?

You don't even understand that most of those in "the droves of great people" are great because the West made them symbols.

I try not to found my admiration of artists upon their apotheosis by others. But perhaps I do. We're all products of our environment, after all.

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.

You freely admit your ignorance in economy

Freely and proudly.

and are trying to switch the topic to some chimerical creativity

You needn't have involved yourself.

You know, I'm getting tired of your lexicon

Well, season's greetings to you too .

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.

So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?

No, banning his plays is.

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.

You're confusing legality with morality.

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

Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.

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.

I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.

Originally Posted by joysof

So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?

No, banning his plays is.

I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did". Then again, since you have skipped my arguments for other possible reasons for the "banning", you have apparently recognized their validity.

You're confusing legality with morality.

No I am not. I first explained the legality. Then, because you said that the law was immoral, I explained the historical and psychological background that might justify the law. But you ignore that and keep on saying "oh how illegal oh how immoral". I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.

[quote:6xk02nt9]How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?

Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.[/quote:6xk02nt9]

You don't see a logical incompatibility of the two statements of yours?

[quote:6xk02nt9]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.

I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.[/quote:6xk02nt9]

"In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.

I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did".

Don't believe in evil, as it happens. But that's another discussion.

Regardless of who did it, the plays were banned. This has never on my part been a thread designed to demonise JVS.

"oh how illegal oh how immoral"

What do you expect? I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal, after all .

"In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.

Agreed. A boring detail. Besides, I've had too much to drink and can barely remember my name at this point.