I'm forwarding this because -- well, it is the text of part of a speech given in Ireland by a Russian woman in her early 40s. (Charles Brown posted the first part a while ago. The view of the world herein is so emblematic of how Russians of her generation view the world it made me smile. (Also the obvious Russisms in her not-very-good English. Parts are like English words, but Russian grammar!)
Something most people in the West don't seem to understand is that most people in Russia, especially of her generation, think that socialism is GOOD and that Perestroika is VERY, VERY BAD. I have met precisely two, that's right, two, people out of hundreds who had anything good to say about the breakup of the USSR (and not just Russians -- Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, you name it. I was out with my friend Galina last night, she is a middle-class, 42-year-old Muscovite who works for a travel agency, and we were talking about the USSR. She said, "I lived under Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Brezhnev was the best. You had a stable life and the state took care of you. Gorbachev was like Lenin and Stalin, he just destroyed. I give Brezhnev a thumbs-up! I give Gorbachev a thumbs-down!" This is a middle-class, well-travelled and well-educated woman talking.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal
PERESTROYKA THROUGH RUSSIAN EYES.
What was the atmosphere like in the mid 80s in USSR when Perestroyka started?
-It was cynical : for years and years we've had bad ideologists who were addressing people more comparable with the Catholic church style here : telling us what is right and what is wrong without any space for discussion plus at the same time being an example of DOING all these bad things themselves. The way they were preaching, did not appeal to young people at all. Because the official line was " our system doesn't have any crisises", while obviously every system has them. It was denied that we can have any; new situation was not analysed timely - and the crisis that was growing, at some stage became fatal like an untreated cancer.
I don't have to give you a separate lecture on Soviet bureaucracy - you are all aware of this issue. The word "appratchik" became international - more so than the words defining our biggest achievements, such as "sputnik" (satellite). Everything what was alive politically - every sort of enthusiasm and idealism - was slowly suffocating and dying under the burden of compulsory meetings and "political information hours" every week, at your work place and elsewhere. The big question remains the same - how to genuinely involve the masses into politics if the majority of people simply do not want to be involved into anything? As I see now, it was all starting when we were still children: at school, nobody wanted to be elected as a leader of the group, even when the group considered this person to be just what they needed. The general attitude was "anybody, but not me, please!" . Being elected into any sort of political position was seen by intelligent people nearly as an insult: I am capable of doing real work, why do you want me just to do useless "blah-blah" act? In this atmosphere the only people who were willing to take those positions, were shameless careerists, not being able of doing anything else, but smooth talking. A good example of this attitude is the following joke: after the harvest season on a collective farm there was an annual general meeting. The best workers were rewarded. "For her excellent work in the fields comrade Petrova will receive 2 bags of grain" - loud applause. "For her excellent work on our diary farm comrade Smirnova will receive a calf" - loud applause. "For her excellent political work comrade Ivanova will receive all 55 volumes of Lenin's works" - loud applause, laughter, shouts : "Yeah, that's what the bitch deserved!" J
This is still the way politicians and political life are being seen in Russia nowadays, perhaps even more than before. It takes time - and courage- to realize and to admit that politics isn't something nice and pretty, but something you NEED to participate in because it is a thing that defines the conditions of your very life - you HAVE to participate in it, because if you won't, others (most often - the sort of people I mentioned above) will, and they will decide for you how you will live!
There was a lot of hypocrisy from the part of our leaders - for example, the leader of Komsomol (Communist Youth) Pastukhov was denouncing pop-group Abba for their song "Money Money Money", claiming that this song is a propaganda of Western materialistic values, and that we shouldn't listen to it because of that. In fact, Abba's song was rather satirical, and, what's worse, people like Pastukhov - his young communists, particularly professional party workers, were actively trading Western goods, including pop records, on the black market, since they were the only ones who had access to them. We all knew about it. At present, you tend to forget about it and do not want to admit the existence of this side of our society, particularly because those who like to talk so much about "the evil of corrupted communism", are, in fact, representing the society that is much worse, much bigger evil itself. One of my Bulgarian friends said, openly and critically analysing our system and admitting all its shortcomings, that still, the Socialist and the Capitalist systems are incomparable - as incomparable are "a thug mass murderer, with a knife in his hands from which the blood of his victims is still dripping - and a small boy with a catapult shooting at birds". It is a good comparison, I think.
In short, the Communist Party was rotting from within - because there was no mechanism of controlling it and it became an attraction for all sorts of careerists who couldn't really do anything in life, except for speaking loud and using it for its own purposes.
People wanted changes - positive changes. The Politbureau was old, with an average age of over 70 (here is another joke for you: a Chukcha (Russian version of a Kerry man) phones up to Kremlin and offers his services as the General Secretary of CPSU. "What, are you mad ???" - the Kremlin worker tells him. "Yes, and old, very old," - Chukcha replies).
I will leave out Andropov time - everybody praises him until now , even his enemies. He started fighting the corruption, and the general believe of the Russian people until now is that he was "helped" to die. True or not, this is what the people say and believe. For me personally, it was the time when I first became involved into politics - after Andropov's death when I was 15, myself and a friend of mine, have organized our own political party - of "True Andropov Followers", - and have held our first party congress in the school's toilet It's very funny to speak about it now, but in the times when it happened, such a thing won't be taken as a joke, if it became known to our teachers:Besides, we weren't joking. We were dead serious.
As a famous pop singer Victor Tsoy (he died in a car crash in the early 90s) stated in 1987, "peremen trebuyut nashi serdca!": - "our hearts are demanding changes!" His song became a hymn of my generation. I wonder, what would he say now - if he would see to what actually those "changes" have led us :
Yes, we wanted changes. But not the kind of changes that we've got.
If you ask me now, how did Perestroyka begin, I'll tell you. It began with: public toilets that were free of charge, becoming payable. A visit to the toilet started costing as much as a big loaf of bread. We were told it was necessary in order to keep it clean and to pay the cleaners. In fact, within a few months of introducing this charge, the toilets stopped being cleaned again - no matter how much you paid. I was extremely angry - why should you pay for something that everybody has to do, like breathing the air? - and became a "refusnik" : I'd refuse to go to the chargeable toilets and use some offices and public schools instead where you didn't have to pay:
Gorbachev started his reforms not with economic changes that were badly needed, but with DESTROYING OUR PRIDE FOR OUR HYSTORICAL ACHIEVENMENTS : a WITCH HUNT FOR GHOSTS was started, first about Stalinism, and eventually - about the Socialist revolution itself. It would be good to give those critical lectures and findings if they would have some constructive purpose rather than just destroying people s belief that they were building a just society (which they were!). But this destruction was exactly the intention of Gorby and his Western masters.
First it was called "a revival of interest towards the real revolution" - pre-Stalin time, early 20s . But then very quickly Gorby has shown his real face: for instance, tender affection for the Bloody Nicholas (who was responsible for our very own Bloody Sunday and many other crimes); suddenly it was all forgotten- and Nicholas became "a martyr". He is now declared "saint" by the Russian Orthodox church.
It was all orchestrated very smoothly. Started with Thatcher saying: " We can deal with this man:" about Gorby in early 80s. And that's exactly what they did. Started with him visiting London and going to expensive shops instead of visiting Marx's grave. Started with him being called "Mister" instead of "comrade" on our radio. That is what he wanted to be.
The revolution has given so much to people like his family - the poorest of the poor. But people with "lumpen" mentality are often the ones who want to become "misters" more than anybody else!
People in the West never seem to understand why for us he is not a Hero - like for the West. It is simply because everything he did good, was not for us, but for the West. He delivered us to the capitalism. Do not even mention to a Russian person in Russia that you like Gorby - if you don't want to be beaten!
First signs of his "freedom" were policemen with batons patrolling the streets - there where they were always unarmed . And the shootings of civilians in the Baltics who peacefully demanded independence. Nobody speaks about it now. I used to laugh at these policemen because they looked so ridiculously in our society where there was no need for that kind of weapons. But the leaders obviously knew where they were heading the country to:
First signs of Gorby's "freedom" was introduction into our lives what he called, "erotics", - and that leaded within a few months to women being attacked on the streets. His "reforms" gave green light to women's sexual exploitation- and all the modern slavery in Western Europe is, in my opinion, on his personal conscience.
When the reforms started, we weren't told we were getting capitalism. We were told : you are getting a democracy. If people were told they are going to get capitalism, they would not fall for it. We were extremely naive and not used to fight for our rights because everything was delivered to us. Until that time, the state was OURS, and it would protect and defend us. It will be hard for you to believe, but we could not imagine that it can be different.
USSR versus the West PLUSES AND MINUSES.
Pluses of USSR.
- No unemployment. Workplaces were created for the people, and I do not think it was bad. Economy existed for the people, not people worked for profit of somebody else. Aleksandr Zinovyev says : Western economy was effective economically, but not socially. Soviet model: not so economically effective, but very effective socially. It is a matter of preference. To me, the system's effectiveness is measured by how the quality of life is for the majority! Not for some. Our life was giving you a feeling that you were contributing to the society, needed by it and valued for your work, no matter what you were doing: if you were a director or a street cleaner. I've been on unemployment benefit for a year in Holland - and it was most frustrating year in my life (even though it lets you survive, it makes you feel worthless). Artificially created working places are much better for your own self esteem. The motto of our society was an old Russian proverb "Who does not work, does not eat".
- Security of life. You had no fears for your future - you knew that you will have a job, that you won't be thrown out of your home, nobody would let you to make debts, you didn't have to worry if you can pay for doctor or school. You had a life without stress. Your quality of life was higher.
- All basic needs were satisfied. Why would I want to have 2 cars and 3 houses if I have 1 of each - and if I will have 2 or 3, that will mean that somebody will have none?
- Virtually no crime. You could walk in the middle of the night on the street - and nothing would happen to you (in the area where I lived, only 1 murder happened in 20 years - and it was a crime of passion!). I wonder, does a state need to be "a dictatorship" in order for people simply to behave?
- There was a full potential for harmonic personal development. Nothing could stop you from studying and working in the field that you would choose (it could never happen that you would graduate and not find work in your field). You could even get second higher education, if you want (part-time or evening - but for free), and it was encouraged.
- Women's position (doctors, teachers -they could take virtually any sort of work they wanted ; they were highly respected in the society). Maternity leave was 18 months paid, and up to 3 years - unpaid with keeping of your working place for you . Nobody had the right to fire a single mother. Motherhood was not an obstacle for the career.
- Subsidised housing, food, transport. Excellent metro and far more developed public transport system than here.
- Free education, medical care (there were purely symbolic prices for medications, but absolutely no waiting lists in the hospitals - I didn't even know it exists until I came here. I think it is a disgrace - and, no matter what Bertie and Tony will say, I know that life can exist without it!), trade unions (NOBODY COULD BE FIRED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE TRADE UNION!). The books here often lie plainly that in USSR "there were no trade unions". They were - with slightly different functions, but they were taking care of most workers' needs, particularly of their recreational needs (subsidized holiday trips, trips to health resorts etc).
- Art, movies, theatres, musea, sport : free or almost free, for everybody, access - since you are a child, you had full access to opera, ballet, theatre etc. Also the best of Western art (unlike here where people do not know anything except of US/UK mass culture! - we had the best French, German, Italian etc movies). No violence, no sex, no garbage on the screens. When I see most films here, I think they are INSULT FOR MY INTELLIGENCE. And the worst thing about it is that YOU VIRTUALLY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE WHAT TO WATCH! Our society was on a much higher intellectual level than the Western world - I believe, here it is encouraged to be stupid. Ours was encouraging you to develop yourself!
- We also have different concept of what art is needed for - not just to entertain, but to make you think, to show you things, to teach you about life. I do not find Western movies "entertaining" - they are EMPTY.
- Travel within the country - organized tours, train-tours ( the cheapest and the most wonderful way to discover the country: you were sleeping on the train, had warm meals in it, and during the day the train was staying at your destination, and you could have the tours around the place- if introduced here, it would be undoubtedly the most expensive tours!), subsidized by the trade unions trips to health resorts (virtually for free!), summer camps for children (good for working parents).
I SEE THAT SO MANY THINGS PEOPLE HERE ARE ONLY FIGHTING FOR, WE ALREADY HAD. AND I AM PROUD IF IT. AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE PERFECTLY ACHIEVABLE!
MINUSES OF USSR.
- Secrecy (about many things you couldn't ask WHY they are the way they are; too much secrecy - for example, my city was closed for foreign visitors up to early 90s). There was also censorship - I've heard of a story where a young girl went to study to Moscow and disappeared. Nobody knew her whereabouts. When the distressed parents started asking the authorities, they were told that there was actually a plane crash, and she died in it, but the crash was not reported in any media at all. We were watching only pleasant news about our lives (it made you feel good, but was not all the truth). Nowadays we see the opposite : the media are concentrating only on bad and evil things. At least in USSR, if something negative was published, something would be surely done about it! The newspapers here and in modern Russia seem to admire all sorts of evil existing and glorify the horrific crimes - for though the psycho murderers and paedophiles are becoming better known nationally figures than the real heroes, the people who do something good.
- Our state was like a loving parent - but sometimes an over-caring parent! You felt that you were not trusted while you were not against the state! For years the letters I was sending abroad, were not reaching their destinations But KGB was also, as I already mentioned, a tool for measuring public opinion!
- Travel abroad restrictions (unlike many of you seem to think, it was possible, but very difficult. It was one of the privileges; we were getting instructions how to behave nice abroad - and to make a best impression about our people). I think that was wrong; most people would come back after they would discover for themselves what Western life is like (and for those who would not - well, good luck!). Because of travel restrictions people had an impression that the West was like "forbidden fruit", something nice, while, in fact, it is quite a rotten fruit!
- Bureaucracy and bad service: customer was never right ; in a shop you were actually the one who was saying to the sales assistant "thank you for serving me"!
My main questions in conclusion to this are : but did we have a choice to be different? It is easy to judge for those who themselves haven't tried any major transformation of the society of that kind and who know Marxism only in theory. "BUT AT LEAST WE TOOK THE CHALLENGE, WE DIDN'T JUST PRETEND"! - I'd say to them.
If you consider the specifics of our country (large, centralized, with very Eastern mentality, severe natural conditions) and the fact that it was surrounded by enemies (20 countries attacked us in the 20s, and you can't say they became much friendlier after the WWII! ), we didn't have much choice but to do extra to protect ourselves. Plus it is our national characteristic that we are the people of extreme. We seem not to know when it is the right time to stop when we start doing something - and we always go till the bitter end. There is no middle for us: either everybody HAS to be an atheist or everybody HAS to go to the church! J
I do not see that the so-called "democratic" system (I call it just capitalism) has anything to offer: to me, if it is not better for everybody, for the majority, all its economic efficiency and all its technological developments are in vain. Worthless.
To me, this life style I see in Western Europe, is not worth to fight for. I think it is not worth a human being's life in the XXI century - especially the American version of it!
You can't be free if you are hungry. You can't be free if you are dependant from individuals with money (your employer etc). You can't be free in the society where money is the highest value and where those with a thicker wallet always win the elections, no matter how many good candidates do you think you have.
You are not free if you express your opinion, but your government doesn't give a damn and just does what it wants anyway.
Your freedom in a "democratic" society is just an illusion.
Our society was not perfect, but there was much more social justice. Social differences were very small. Human being felt more VALUED for his contribution to the society. Human being was not a competitor of another one, but a friend, a comrade. You didn't have to be afraid. It was not like in wild nature - "only the strongest survives"!
I don't see why anybody should have more than they need. Because that will mean that somebody else will be poor and starving.