Oops, the "Mariupol" thread was closed while I typed my comments, so I'll post it here, since it fits this topic as well. The comment is in response to the exchange between Redfox and SergeMak.

------

Redfox, I think you are mixing up the era/generations and that you are letting your negative feelings regarding the USSR somewhat blind you regarding the practical realities. Also, like many Russians, you are judging your country (Russia) very harshly.

I want to give my impressions:


  • Russia, at the time of the revolution, was well behind most of Western Europe, and America in terms of development.
  • The way that the peasants lived was very primitive.
  • Industry was not developed.
  • Many people (the majority?) could not read or write.


Surely everybody in Russia knows that Imperial Russia was not a modern country in its days, right? Maybe it had been modern in earlier times, but not in the early 20th century. If it had been strong, efficient and looked after its citizens, the revolution wouldn't have happened!

Russia had somehow stifled development in the the countryside and among the poor.

Sweden where I come from was also poor in those days; a cold, strongly religious and generally backwards country on the outskirts of the continent. But everybody could read and there was industry and natural resources exploited.

There were NO peasants from my grandparents generation who couldn't read. There had been compulsory schooling for 6 years, from ca 1850.

But SergeMak is explaining how his grandmother who I assume is not much older than mine (born 1919 and 1927) could not read, but that her children and grandchildren received high quality education at university level. That was during her lifetime, presumably, and it shows remarkably fast progress. I have seen pictures of how peasants lived at the time of the revolution; it is shocking.

I am not defending the over-use of violence in the revolution, the excesses of Stalin and sometimes cruel and insensitive treatment of people in the early days of the USSR. The USSR did some things that I would totally condemn and had practices up until the end that must have been VERY frustrating for people to put up with.
I am not defending it due to Communist beliefs, and either way I am well aware that most European Communists were very critical of the ideology of the the USSR.

However; I respect that the USSR achieved ENORMOUS progress, in very short time, for all their faults. That can't be denied!

That's why the USA eventually became so paranoid about the USSR.
They had to blackpaint it, because there was a lot that was attractive in, to people who had no other way to improve their lives, or that of their children.

In nearby countries, they lived in fear of a similar spontaneous or USSR backed revolution for decades afterwards.

Workers peasants and others across Europe were inspired by events in the USSR, and out of sheer fear that the revolution would spread, their conditions were improved. The mere existence of the USSR helped peasants and workers across Europe. If they formed a Marxist Leninist study group, got a banner with a hammer and sickle and held a few meetings, their houses were quickly fixed, salaries went up and other good things happened....

Later, the USSR educated Africans built infrastructure, schools, hospitals and helped them for no particular benefit to the USSR.

In Sweden we had our first proper election only months after the 1917 revolution in Russia. Hardly a chance! My grandfather who grew up on a small estate in the countryside told how scared his family had been of the Bolsheviks, and how this fear caused his negligent and alcoholic father was forced to spend money on improving living conditions for peasants on their land after the peasants had some communist meeting.

In the UK, there were huge improvements to the living conditions of the working classes once the genie of Marxism was let out of the bottle... And even more so, after 1917. It's well documented.

So my first point is that the USSR was a positive influence outside its own borders, for peasants workers and intellectual people in Europe and the third world.

My other point is that you cannot compare the USSR with the USA, because the starting positions were different!

Frankly, the people who emigrated to the USA, were self-selected, people with a "drive" to improve their lives. They were entrepreneurial risk takers with initiative.

Secondly; the land was open and the opportunities were endless. Of course somebody could quickly improve their life if they coult just grab a large piece of fertile land, for free, and not have to pay tax! That was the situation in the USA up to the early 20th century, at least for people who were prepared to move far West or North.

During the 19th century there were completely un-exploited natural resources close to the new cities, owned by nobody.
They had entrepreneurial freedom that did not exist in imperial Russia. The American constitution that they are so proud of, worked well back in those days, (at least if you were white...) The state could not bully people like the tsar regime in imperial Russia did.

Was Imperial Russia really "freer" than the USSR - even for those lucky enough to have good lives? I doubt it. People couldn't say what they wanted, people who complained and they had less opportunities than during the USSR era to improve their lvies.

By all means, criticize the USSR for what it did wrong (brutal in the early days and during Stalin, insensitive, ineffective and later stagnated). But don't deny what it did well.

It educated people, improved living conditions for the great majority, peasants, workers.

Compare the standard and opportunities during Soviet days, of Tadjikistan with Afghanistan nearby that has the same tribes and religion.

Look at how native populations lived in the USA, and still do to some extent up in Alaska and at Indian reservations. It's a complete disgrace. The USSR took much better care of such populations and was more sensitive to their cultures.

And what are you talking about when you imply that modern Russians are less educated / intellectual / cultured than Westerners?

I.e. "Liberal Arts" (A strange American expression which essentially means they continue studying the things they should have learned in high school, for 4 more years at university, which they have re-named (and demoted) to calling "college". At college they learn very little of practical knowlege. An excellent idea to push in a country where you have to pay a small fortune to attend university... They are paying for something they should have received for free, in school.) To get the useful higher education needed for the work place, they have to continue on to a Masters which I believe is called University at that stage.

That Russians aren't intellectual simply isn't right! You have a reputation of being intellectual, didn't you know that? Which country do you consider to be significantly intellectually superior to Russia? If you say the USA, I will laugh...

I grew up watching plenty of Russian content on TV, not because of any ideological reasons largely, but mainly because the artistic and intellectual quality was considered superior to that of alternative countries they could have imported from. Yugoslavia and Chechoslovakia also cut the mark in that department, btw). Of course, we also had English speaking, German etc content. For children's material the difference in quality was stunning and very little American content sipped through in my childhood.

Why are you putting your country down like that, when it doesn't deserve it... ?
Americans are the opposite: They keep telling themselves they are the freest, richest, most moral even though its not true apart from for the really well off.
You Russians are almost the opposite. You are convinced you are much worse than you actually are.

As for intellectual people:

We only need to look here in this forum. I have noticed that:

  • The average Russian member is stellar at history, in many cases they know aspects of my country's history better than I do, and I am well educated.
  • Russians here are familiar with topics like Political philosophy and have read classics ranging from Greek odes to the English/French/German/Spanish classics, not to mention Russian.
  • People are familiar with world religions and their own Christian heritage.
  • Most Russians here are well familiar with classical music, opera, theater


I am almost certain that this is heritage from the USSR.
It's very much an upper middle class marker in most of Western Europe to be take part in such culture. If you take Americans, they are rarely intellectual in that respect, it's just not the heritage there.
But in Russia, it's almost the norm.

When we see Russians who are less cultured/intellectual, it's younger people who were educated after the influence of the USSR ended, with junk TV, computer games.

So sure: Russia doesn't have "Liberal Arts colleges", but somehow, the population is still more intellectual than in the country that does!