One of the reasons I dislike the Republicans so much is their wholehearted adoption of Soviet-style political practices. If this comparison surprises you, that's only because you have been taken in by the anti-Soviet blustering they maintained during the Cold War years. In reality, though, whenever I talk to a Republican or see one on television, I feel like I've been transported right back into the Soviet Union. Here are some of the commonalities between the Soviets and the Republicans.
1. Militarism. Having a huge military machine that would consume the greater part of the state budget is something that both Republicans and Soviets find near and dear to their hearts. Invading people "for their own good" characterizes the foreign policy of both these groups.
2. Homophobia. The Soviet leaders fulfilled the Republican dream of making homosexuality punishable with prison sentences.
3. "Too big to fail" type of economy. Just like the Republicans, the Soviets gave huge bailouts to unwieldy, unprofitable corporations to keep them in existence against all logic and reason.
4. Puritanical morality. Soviet sex ed classes were the Republican dream come true. Abstinence until marriage was the only acceptable way of being. High schools and universities had mandatory gynecological exams whose goal was to establish which female students were not virgins. The lists of girls who weren't virgins were publicized and these girls were shamed publicly. Sounds like music to Republican ears, doesn't it? Contraceptives were not outlawed in the USSR but were impossible to buy anywhere, which amounts to the same thing.
5. Jingoism. The cloying flag-waving patriotism in the Soviet Union was formulated and promoted in ways that would bring tears of joyful recognition to the eyes of every hard-core Republican.
6. Hatred of the poor and the unemployed. If a person is unemployed and can't find a job, it's their own fault, right? Or at least, that's what every Republican likes to believe. The Soviet leaders carried this conviction to its ultimate consequences and gave out prison sentences to people who found themselves out of work. Social mobility in the Soviet Union was completely impossible. Just as impossible as the Republican would like to have it.
7. Hatred of the Humanities. No other branch of learning suffered as much persecution in the USSR as the Humanities. A Republican would weep with joy observing the completely castrated Soviet Humanities.
8. Hatred of hairy hippies and intellectual elites. How many times have we heard the Republicans thunder against long-haired hippies and nasty intellectuals who pervert the wholesome American youngsters? Welcome to the USSR where a man who let his hair grow longer than a crew cut would be expelled from school or fired from his job. Hippies were routinely rounded up by the police and beaten up. Intellectuals were treated like public enemies, ridiculed, and criticized to death.
So these are just a few similarities between the Republicans and the Soviets. You can find a lot more as soon as you start looking carefully. I tried to come up with any significant differences between them but can think of nothing.
23 comments:
You went too far with #6. Yes, there was a punishment intended for those out of work, but in reality it was applied only for political reasons. So it was something like oral sex being punishable (on paper) in some states.
Social mobility was entirely possible, especially via education. There was, however, social stigma attached to those who changed jobs or careers ("letun")
But otherwise I agree with you, and add more: according to my observations, Russian immigrants (including those who immigrated recently, and did not escape evil SU) tend to lean towards republicans. Hell, some of them would join KKK if KKK would accept them...
I have lived in Poland for about 15 months in the 1970's, but never in one of the Soviet Republics. In Poland, intellectual elites were revered at that time. Was this one of the reasons Poland refused to become one of the Soviet republics, I wonder.
Also, in theory everyone there was guaranteed a job, although this could mean that someone with an MD degree was sweeping streets.
"In Poland, intellectual elites were revered at that time."
-Do you mean by the authorities? Or by regular citizens? Because there is a huge difference here. I was talking about the attitude of the Soviet authorities.
V.: I'm talking about actual social mobility, not formal mobility. Look at Lysenko, all his academic titles did not make anybody confuse him for a member of intelligentsia, did they? You could defend all dissertations you wanted and still everybody would now that you were born in the country-side and giggle behind your back.
Neither could you achieve social mobility through marriage. Look at my family. 35 years of marriage and still will anybody fail to guess which one of the spouses was born in a village? And, again, fail to giggle about it? There is such a host of tiny little things that you don't know about and can never possibly learn if you are not a member of intelligentsia.
As to the social mobility into the powerful and the rich classes, I went to high school with children of party members and "businesspeople" who were toadying to them and believe me, no social mobility could have been so much as imagined there.
I think by both. The title "Professor" meant that police would defer to a person. A large number of mathematicians were supported by the Polish Academy of Sciences. More than are supported now, I think. As for the humanities, I knew only one author of a non-mathematical book, about Indonesia. He had been a Party member, but was bitterly anticommunist when I knew him; but his book was kept in print.
Clarissa, it will take a while to sort your arguments out. :)
First of all, while I agree about Lysenko in particular, in many cases there was nothing wrong with the first-generation intelligentsia. Despite second or third generation intelligentsia snobbishly giggling behind their backs. I've seen it, and I am sick of it. Nothing personal here - I am at least 4-th generation myself, and possibly even a nobleman.
I'd even go so far as to claim that the level of formal education or belonging to the N-th generation of educated people do not make anybody "intelligentsia". Education is only one of necessary conditions. High level of psychological maturity ("differentiation" in Schnarchian/ Bowenian terms :) ) is as important or even more important. And the latter does not have much correlation with pedigree.
In principle, I do not like to call myself a member of "intelligentsia" at all, because to me they are a crowd with mind f**ked up in some particular way... Carriers of certain particular type of complexes... Know that environment from inside.
Returning back to the SU - I would say there was more mobility via education than there is now in Russia or than there is in the US. Remember, though, we are still talking about highly-qualified professionals here (whom you mistake for intelligentsia :) ), not about party elite. The latter were, indeed, the analog of aristocracy.
If one learns anything from one's spouse (or his/her circle) or not depends on the people's personalities, SU has nothing to do with it.
Pagan Topologist suggests an important point. Poland was and is not the Soviet Union or Russia. Even with a Communist Government Poland was not lock step with the Soviet Communism. Even today when passing from the Russian Republic into Poland you can almost feel the change.
Hated of the poor and unemployed is something of an institutionalized American value. We really enjoy it.
In part this is due to some of the mythology surrounding American national identity: America is a land of plenty and endless opportunity for all. Therefore, if you're poor or unemployed, you are simply not working hard enough or looking hard enough for new work.
So, if you're unemployed you're punished largely by social stigma, at least until the practical consequences of living in a country with virtually no social welfare come into play.
As to #8, I wholeheartedly agree. Aside from the strange religiously motivated conservatism, the anti-intellectual platform of the modern Republican/Tea Party is extremely disturbing.
Hated of the poor and unemployed is something of an institutionalized American value. We really enjoy it.
In part this is due to some of the mythology surrounding American national identity: America is a land of plenty and endless opportunity for all. Therefore, if you're poor or unemployed, you are simply not working hard enough or looking hard enough for new work.
So, if you're unemployed you're punished largely by social stigma, at least until the practical consequences of living in a country with virtually no social welfare come into play.
As to #8, I wholeheartedly agree. Aside from the strange religiously motivated conservatism, the anti-intellectual platform of the modern Republican/Tea Party is extremely disturbing.
"Returning back to the SU - I would say there was more mobility via education than there is now in Russia or than there is in the US."
-I have no idea about Russia today, but in terms of a comparison between the US and SU I can't agree at all. At all. I went to a high school for rich kids in the USSR and then to a university for rich kids in the US. And at the very least at Yale there was never a situation where somebody wouldn't talk to me or pretend I'm not there because I'm a poor immigrant and not old American money. It was the exact opposite at my school for rich kids in the SU.
I have never seen one instance of any kind of social mobility in the Soviet Union, not one. Maybe our experiences differ because we are from different countries. Or maybe you and I are from different social classes. The upper classes always overestimate social mobility while the lower classes underestimate it.
"Pagan Topologist suggests an important point. Poland was and is not the Soviet Union or Russia. Even with a Communist Government Poland was not lock step with the Soviet Communism. Even today when passing from the Russian Republic into Poland you can almost feel the change."
-I've never been to Poland, so I'm sure you know better how things were there. Being both Ukrainian and Jewish I don't have any particular desire to visit Poland.
Which soviets? Many theorists consider the rise of Stalinism a counterrevolution (including people like Trotsky who fought in the original revolution). Lenin's administration saw a marked expansion of many of these rights and, not only was abortion and homosexuality legalized, an openly gay man was amoung Lenin's top diplomats. Lenin actually had the most progressive laws in the world at the time regarding homosexuality and this involved directly overturning previous laws. Adultery was legalized (Lenin actually wrote letters to his lovers about how after the revolution, they would be free from Christianized sexual morality and would not longer be forced to hold to narrow monogamous marriage). Women's ability to work and get an education was also dramatically expanded by Lenin.
I'm not saying Lenin was perfect, because he wasn't (nor was his administration) and the flaws in the design of the Leninist system opened to door for the Stalinist rise to power (Stalin, contrary to popular belief, was not one of Lenin's close group and, in fact, killed many of them when he rose to power and fought an actual war against prominent revolutionary figures), but Lenin and Soviet does not automatically equal Stalinist.
I'm sorry, cat, but you are mistaken. Stalin was among the 4 people most close to Lenin. The events of 1917-1918 prove that abundantly. When after his April theses of 1917 lenin feared for his life, it was Stalin to whom he entrusted his own life, not anybody else.
Stalin was a faithful follower of Lenin and Trotsky. (His persecution of Trotsky didn't prevent him from stealing all of his ideas.) What you are saying is part of this pro-Communist propaganda that tried to present Stalin as a person who somehow perverted the "true" teachings of Lenin and Trotsky. In reality, Stalin never perverted anything. He didn't have enough imagination for that.
Lenin's momentary concessions to sexual freedoms were a ploy (just like NEP, a short-lived return to capitalism, just like giving the land to the peasants.) Lenin loved pulling tricks like that: offering some freedom only then to come down with always greater repressions.
Clarissa,
I am sorry to say you are quire correct in not wanting to visit Poland. It is a lovely country (my wife is Polish), but continues to this day to have an ugly underlying theme of anti-Semitism. It is difficult to reconcile this theme with the earlier history of Polish tolerance for Jews, but there you are. Also of course Polish nationalists still believe that large parts of the Ukraine really belong to Poland. In many ways visiting Eastern Europe is stepping back into history) as the guide books say), but this is not always a good thing.
---The upper classes always overestimate social mobility while the lower classes underestimate it.
Nice try. Except this does not explain our disagreement. Because your class seems to be a bit higher than mine (bigger city intelligentsia) :)
What I meant by social mobility in the SU was the following: a boy from a regular (poor by western standards) family from a small town could go to university (for free, and even get a scholarship easily), learn something there and then become a renowned scientist, or a top engineer on a large industrial plant, or an army general.
Some universities were corrupt, but many were not. So it worked.
"Nice try. Except this does not explain our disagreement. Because your class seems to be a bit higher than mine (bigger city intelligentsia) :)"
-My fiend, I eat spaghetti with my fingers and yo are aristocracy. :-) :-)
" a boy from a regular (poor by western standards) family from a small town could go to university (for free, and even get a scholarship easily), learn something there and then become a renowned scientist"
- It isn't true social mobility, though, if people won't talk to you, won't have you over at their places, won't tolerate your children being married to theirs, make fun of you behind your back, etc.
Truly talented eople can become renowned scientists anywhere. I've seen tons of such cases in the Us and Canada. And in Russia there was always Lomonosov. :-)
Wow that's a lot of hatred for someone who preaches "tolerance"... Don't be surprised if some people hate feminists and "autistic people" with same intensity you hate USSR (which was a great country, where I grew up).
A couple of points: "sex ed". Thanks god, we didn't have it in Soviet Union--may be that's why people I grew up around weren't "hoes", like American 15-year old who die from Ecstasy overdoses at SoCal raves and 13 year olds who have sex with multiple partners. Also, we didn't have nasty objectification and degradation of women in mass media that is promoted by "Western Culture". That's all your sexual freedom is: making women to be more available sex objects to be consumed by men.
Also, there were no epidemic of AIDS.
Persecution of Humanities? LOLWUT? Do your homework lady. We had more "historians", "librarians", "social scientists", "art historians", "MS in literature" per capita than US will Ever have. In fact, rather than sending kids to work in McDonalds to pay their student bills, Soviet government paid ALL educational and living expenses for students so that they could study and later provided guaranteed jobs for all humanities majors, as there were numerous research institutes.
As to hatred of intellectual elites... My family happened to be that and was treated quite well by Soviet government. Soviet intellectual elite was (intelligentsia) was a circle of extremely arrogant people who had very elevated position in society and looked down on everyone.
Stupid blog by someone ignorant and uninformed. Another dumb American with a big twat instead of mouth. No wonder no one wants to fuck someone like you.
Buddy, get acquainted with a blog before you spout idiocies, ok? I'm not American, I was born in the USSR, which was a nasty, vile, horrible place. You can keep your stupid pro-Soviet lies to yourself because I actually happen to know first-hand how ridiculous what you're saying is.
And I don't preach tolerance. Enter the word tolerance in the search box on this blog and you will see what I have to say about it.
What you have to say about sex and the "hos" shows that your Soviet sexual repression has damaged you too badly. That's a crying shame. But it does prove how right I am about everything I say.
If that post was written by a representative of the Soviet intellectual elite, then I rest my case.
Dear Anon Soviet Patriot form SoCal :),
I would like to take issue with your vision of sex. (And then continue from there. :) ) While I must agree there was no SoCal or rave in the USSR :), there definitely was a local version of everything else. And sex-ed, if present, would help addressing part of the problem, like it does everywhere in Europe. The reason for the sorry state of affairs you described (in the US) is not too much sex-ed, it is insufficient sex-ed, topped with all sorts of puritanical double-messages. Almost exactly as it was in the USSR.
Now, if you have not observed all that in the USSR, it means you have grown up in an environment which was an exception, rather than a rule. You leave couple more hints here and there - your family doing quite well in the SU time, belonging to the "arrogant" part of intelligentsia...
Big city, elite English or phys-math school? 57-th? :)
And while technically SU indeed had more people with humanitarian education per capita than there are in the West - that education was not competitive enough, people had big gaps in their knowledge here and there and big piles of ideological s**t here and there. But, if we take aside some exaggeration on Clarissa's part, this is exactly what she is claiming about republican-run US. Just substitute "communism" with "patriotism" or "democracy" or "American values"...
I must say that I found the remarks of “Anonymous” the Russian apologist bizarre and the Russia described therein nothing like either the Soviet Union or the Russian Republic that I experienced. Admittedly the last time I was there was 2005 so perhaps a major transformation has taken place since then. On the other hand the atrocious manners displayed by Anonymous suggest that he or she is either an adolescent or not playing with a full deck.
It is actually quite an interesting phenomenon: a new breed of Russians is emerging in the North America...Russian immigrants used to bash SU and Russia in any and every way possible, painting it as an empire of evil no less. Which it is not. Just an average country, with some unfounded sense of moral superiority... But then show me a country which does not have an unfounded sense of moral superiority...
But recently I see more and more Soviet/Russian patriots in North America... :) :) What is going on?
Okay, so let me start off by saying that I was born in America, but my father lived about 40 years of his life in the Soviet Union, more specifically in Lithuania. These are his unadulterated words:
"Soviet Union? I hate it. You gonna hate it too when you learn about it. America is not the same, no way, but I tell you the truth, I hate it. You gonna hate it too when you live about it."
If you're looking for class bias, he was poor then, and we're poor now.
Post a Comment