WI liberal Soviet Union
Barbarossa
world. There was no forced collectivization, no state-controlled
ecomony, art or life. Divorce and marriage was easy...But in OTL it soon
changed into the catastrophical dictatorship we all knew.
But what if Lenin did not force state-control of nearly all aspects of
life? What if it did not changed into a dictatorship?
Robert J. Kolker
Barbarossa wrote:
>
> But what if Lenin did not force state-control of nearly all aspects of
> life? What if it did not changed into a dictatorship?
Lenin was a power hungry man and thoroughly radical. If he had not have
been, he would not be the Lenin of OTL. It might have been better for
the world if he had eliminated Stalin from a position of power earlier,
but a nice liberal socialist revolution is a burgoise fantasy.
In those days, socialist reformers were consisdered greater enemies of
the Revolution than capitalists. Capitalists could always be dealt with,
but socialist reformers were soft on capitalism therefore a danger to
the radical revolution.
Bob Kolker
Vinnie O
Exactly which 3 days are you talking about?
The entire period where the Russian empire was known as "the Soviet
Union" was a period of unrelieved suppression of rights by the
Communists. This was the ENTIRE program of the Communists, the only
debate between Lenin and Trotsky being about who got shot FIRST.
I saw an interesting statistic a few weeks ago. Something along the
lines of --
Spanish Inquisition - 10 executions per week
Lenin's Soviet Union - 1,000 executions per week
Stalin's Soviet Union - 20,000 executions per week
And which one is the most widely condemned? Why the Spanish
Inquisition, of course! Why? Because for some odd reasons everybody
wants to simply EXCUSE the Communists for the their bloodbaths.
The only way to get a "liberal" Russia is for an entirely
NON-Communist government to emerge in Russia, probably a constiutional
monarchy. Hopefully this also avoids the Civil War.
Assuming the Communists were never in a position to screw the place
up, the Russian middle class EXPLODES during the '20s. Expansion of
the industrial sector by CAPITALISTS doubles and triples over the next
10 years. And is in a reasonable position to recover with the rest of
the world after the Depression.
Hard to say what the non-existence of Russian Communism does to
Germany, but it generally means that Mao doesn't take power in China
and 35-50 MILLION Chinese don't get executed THERE
Ivan Hodes
> world. There was no forced collectivization, no state-controlled
> ecomony, art or life.
Holy shit, when was this? During the NEP? Think again...the USSR was
a brutal police state from the November revolution on. There was
indeed a state controlled economy, of heavy industry and other
"commanding heights."
> But what if Lenin did not force state-control of nearly all aspects of
> life? What if it did not changed into a dictatorship?
Dictatorship is, I fear, inherent to Bolshevism in particular and
Leninism in general.
Ivan Hodes
Ivan Hodes
> I saw an interesting statistic a few weeks ago. Something along the
> lines of --
>
> Spanish Inquisition - 10 executions per week
> Lenin's Soviet Union - 1,000 executions per week
> Stalin's Soviet Union - 20,000 executions per week
>
> And which one is the most widely condemned? Why the Spanish
> Inquisition, of course! Why? Because for some odd reasons everybody
> wants to simply EXCUSE the Communists for the their bloodbaths.
>
Uh, who exactly are all these people that condemn the Spanish
Inquisition? It doesn't seem to be a particularly hot topic. And who
s this "everybody" that EXCUSES the Communists?
> Assuming the Communists were never in a position to screw the place
> up, the Russian middle class EXPLODES during the '20s. Expansion of
> the industrial sector by CAPITALISTS doubles and triples over the next
> 10 years. And is in a reasonable position to recover with the rest of
> the world after the Depression.
I really don't know--maybe the Constitutional Democrats could hav
ehandled things, but Russia sure was wrecked by World War I. And
there industrial capacity wasn't so hot to begin with.
>
> Hard to say what the non-existence of Russian Communism does to
> Germany, but it generally means that Mao doesn't take power in China
> and 35-50 MILLION Chinese don't get executed THERE
I don't think that 35-50 MILLION Chinese were *executed* in China.
Died as a result of insane social engineering, yeah. Little
difference to the victims, I suppose.
Ivan Hodes
jlk7e
> > In its early years the Soviet Union was the most liberal nation of the
> > world. There was no forced collectivization, no state-controlled
> > ecomony, art or life. Divorce and marriage was easy...But in OTL it soon
> > changed into the catastrophical dictatorship we all knew.
> >
> > But what if Lenin did not force state-control of nearly all aspects of
> > life? What if it did not changed into a dictatorship?
>
> Exactly which 3 days are you talking about?
>
> The entire period where the Russian empire was known as "the Soviet
> Union" was a period of unrelieved suppression of rights by the
> Communists. This was the ENTIRE program of the Communists, the only
> debate between Lenin and Trotsky being about who got shot FIRST.
>
> I saw an interesting statistic a few weeks ago. Something along the
> lines of --
>
> Spanish Inquisition - 10 executions per week
> Lenin's Soviet Union - 1,000 executions per week
> Stalin's Soviet Union - 20,000 executions per week
>
> And which one is the most widely condemned? Why the Spanish
> Inquisition, of course!
What bullshit. Everyone condemns Stalin's terror. I'd agree that
Lenin's activities are probably not sufficiently discussed, but
Stalin's crimes are constantly talked about.
Steve Hix
jl...@juno.com (jlk7e) wrote:
Certainly they are. At the same time, you're far more likely to find
someone defending Stalin's Soviet Union than defending the Inquisition.
Lee Ratner
> Barbarossa <MC.B...@tu-bs.de> wrote in message news:<3FFE686...@tu-bs.de>...
> > In its early years the Soviet Union was the most liberal nation of the
> > world. There was no forced collectivization, no state-controlled
> > ecomony, art or life.
>
> Holy shit, when was this? During the NEP? Think again...the USSR was
> a brutal police state from the November revolution on. There was
> indeed a state controlled economy, of heavy industry and other
> "commanding heights."
>
taboos of the time like abortion, premarital sex and homosexuality
were okay and the Soviet leaders encouraged artists to be avant-garde.
Then Stalin changed everything. Perhaps, he means a POD where Stalin
does not make abortion and homosexuality illegal again and does not
crack down on premarital sex.
Ivan Hodes
> Certainly they are. At the same time, you're far more likely to find
> someone defending Stalin's Soviet Union than defending the Inquisition.
I'd imagine you're also likely to find somone attacking Stalin's
Soviet Union than attacking the Inquisition, it's a rather more
popular topic.
Ivan Hodes
Rob
> I think he met the time period before Stalin when all sorts of
> taboos of the time like abortion, premarital sex and homosexuality
> were okay and the Soviet leaders encouraged artists to be avant-garde.
> Then Stalin changed everything. Perhaps, he means a POD where Stalin
> does not make abortion and homosexuality illegal again and does not
> crack down on premarital sex.
That's certainly a what-if we can work with. It might be hard to
sustain those policies without a puritanical reaction at some point,
as more "average Ivans" rose in the power structure. On balance, more
people were probably more comfortable the more traditional ways. On
the other hand, even if it affects birthrates negatively, since the
transition to social conservatism in OTL was only around 1928 or 1929
its only going to create a shortage of 13 year olds in 1941.'
This USSR would probably be just as popular with literary and artistic
circles in the west, but maybe would have less of a western working
class following if its propaganda posters were in abstract art rather
than socialist realism.
marc_ch
> The only way to get a "liberal" Russia is for an entirely
> NON-Communist government to emerge in Russia, probably a constiutional
> monarchy.
You might be forgetting that they had one. It was largely the reason why
they had a revolution.
marc
Steve Hix
sarcas...@yahoo.com (Ivan Hodes) wrote:
Considering how comparatively recent and well-documented the excesses of
Stalin's regime, even being within the memory of still living persons,
it should be far less likely to find defenders of him and his policies
...yet they exist in ostensibly-respectable institutions to this day.
It's bad enough that Duranty and others shilled for the old monster at
the time, there should be no excuse for it now. It just seems odd that
comparitively fewer commentators on the Inquisition will defend it than
Stalin and his pals.
Lee Ratner
> czar...@aol.com (Lee Ratner) wrote in message
> > >
> > I think he met the time period before Stalin when all sorts of
> > taboos of the time like abortion, premarital sex and homosexuality
> > were okay and the Soviet leaders encouraged artists to be avant-garde.
> > Then Stalin changed everything. Perhaps, he means a POD where Stalin
> > does not make abortion and homosexuality illegal again and does not
> > crack down on premarital sex.
>
>
> That's certainly a what-if we can work with. It might be hard to
> sustain those policies without a puritanical reaction at some point,
> as more "average Ivans" rose in the power structure.
It seems to me that most Marxist nations go through an initial
"liberal" period but quickly become puritanical.
On balance, more
> people were probably more comfortable the more traditional ways.
Oh yes, traditional Russian peasants really did not disappear until
the 1930s.
On
> the other hand, even if it affects birthrates negatively, since the
> transition to social conservatism in OTL was only around 1928 or 1929
> its only going to create a shortage of 13 year olds in 1941
> This USSR would probably be just as popular with literary and artistic
> circles in the west, but maybe would have less of a western working
> class following if its propaganda posters were in abstract art rather
> than socialist realism.
One reason why the Soviet Union adopted socialist realism as an
official style was that most Russians good not understand the
avant-garde art that was being performed.
Dale
> That's certainly a what-if we can work with. It might be hard to
> sustain those policies without a puritanical reaction at some point,
> as more "average Ivans" rose in the power structure. On balance, more
> people were probably more comfortable the more traditional ways. On
> the other hand, even if it affects birthrates negatively, since the
> transition to social conservatism in OTL was only around 1928 or 1929
> its only going to create a shortage of 13 year olds in 1941.'
>
> This USSR would probably be just as popular with literary and artistic
> circles in the west, but maybe would have less of a western working
> class following if its propaganda posters were in abstract art rather
> than socialist realism.
Actually during the 1920s, the Soviet Union was producing some of the
most if not the most avant-garde theatre and film in the world. While
the rest of the world was mainly concerned with creating light and
escapist entertainment in silent films and musicals. The Soviets were
breaking barriers and pushing art with the Constructionist movement in
design, theatre, and art and the Montage movement in film. This all
ended in the 1930s when Stalin began pushing for social realism films
usually about tractors breaking down on communes.
There was plenty of groundbreaking art in the Capitalist west during
the 1920s but it wasn't anywhere near as revolutionary as the stuff
the Russians were producing. BTW to all detractors all of the Soviet
artists were true belivers in the Revolution, Boleshiveks all.
Matt Giwer
> In article <20844aed.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> sarcas...@yahoo.com (Ivan Hodes) wrote:
>>Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
>>news:<sehix-5F2986....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>...
>>>Certainly they are. At the same time, you're far more likely to find
>>>someone defending Stalin's Soviet Union than defending the Inquisition.
>>
>>I'd imagine you're also likely to find somone attacking Stalin's
>>Soviet Union than attacking the Inquisition, it's a rather more
>>popular topic.
> Considering how comparatively recent and well-documented the excesses of
> Stalin's regime, even being within the memory of still living persons,
> it should be far less likely to find defenders of him and his policies
> ....yet they exist in ostensibly-respectable institutions to this day.
> It's bad enough that Duranty and others shilled for the old monster at
> the time, there should be no excuse for it now. It just seems odd that
> comparitively fewer commentators on the Inquisition will defend it than
> Stalin and his pals.
First they came for the communists and we never thanked them.
Hitler was a fucking ner-do-well compared to Stalin.
But Hitler is the evil doer and Stalin is a hero in the war for democracy.
--
Story has it the Jackie Kennedy crawled over the trunk
to retrieve a piece of her husband's brain. But that
could not have happened unless there was a bullet
entering from the front.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2978
George Carty
>
> Certainly they are. At the same time, you're far more likely to find
> someone defending Stalin's Soviet Union than defending the Inquisition.
Certainly - it was after all Stalin's Soviet Union which crushed the
even _worse_ regime that had subjugated Europe 1939-1941...
Alex Filonov
That's not true. Some were bolsheviks, like Mayakovsky. Most poets
were not. Of writers, only Sholokhov and Fadeev can be described as
bolsheviks. There weren't many avant-garde painters which could be
described as bolsheviks.
David Tenner
news:127e4692.04011...@posting.google.com:
>
> There was plenty of groundbreaking art in the Capitalist west during
> the 1920s but it wasn't anywhere near as revolutionary as the stuff
> the Russians were producing. BTW to all detractors all of the Soviet
> artists were true belivers in the Revolution, Boleshiveks all.
>
First of all, that ignores the huge number of artists who emigrated--among
writers, examples are Bunin, Khodasevich, Tsvetaeva (yes, she eventually
returned, but many years later, and then committed suicide), Remizov,
Gippius, Merezhkovsky, etc. And among painters there were Kandinsky,
Exter, Goncharova, Larionov, Chagall, and others. (Some of them to be
sure had already left Russia before the Revolution; but either they did
not return, or if they did return, they decided before long to go back to
the West.)
Second, of those who remained in Russia, many like Akhmatova and Pasternak
and Mandelshtam were certainly no Bolsheviks (they were often called
"internal emigres" by their critics). And of course Gumilyov was shot by
the Bolsheviks.
This is not to deny that much of the avant-garde like Mayakovsky was
enthusiastic about the Revolution. But that is far from saying that all
Russian artists, even in the USSR, were "Bolsheviks."
Lenin btw was *personally* not much friendlier than Stalin to the early
Soviet avant-garde. Once "he would grab Lunacharsky and ask what was this
peculiar slab of marble. On being told that it was a statue of Kropotkin,
Lenin would explode: he knew the old Anarchist personally and could vouch
for the fact that he had a head and two eyes." Adam Ulam, *The
Bolsheviks*, p. 538. He also detested the new sexual freedom preached by
Alexandra Kollontai; see Klara Zetkin's account at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/works/zetkin1.htm
One may ask why if Lenin and most of the other early Bolsheviks disliked
the avant-gardist trends in culture, they didn't suppress them. IMO the
answer is largely that they considered that they had more important things
to do, like winning the Civil War and then staving off economic collapse.
Also, Lunacharsky helped to protect experimental artists. But the days of
the avant-garde were probably numbered, with or without Stalin: in the end
the argument that you had to have an art and literature that "people could
understand" was likely to prevail with the Bolshevik leaders. I still
think, as I said at
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=22b977c0842c5f4c that the survival of
the avant-garde was possible, but I now think it much less likely than I
did then.
BTW, there has been a recent tendency to argue that the avant-garde was
not the victim but the perpetrator of totalitarianism: "As the art
historian and philosopher Boris Groys expressed in his book
Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin (Hanser Publishers 1988): 'The Stalinist time did
indeed realize the avant-garde's dream of organizing the entirety of
social life according to an overall artistic plan, although it was
obviously not the one the avant-garde had in mind.'"
http://www.deutsche-bank-kunst.com/art/07/e/thema-semler.php (an article
which, I hasten to add, does not fully accept this critique, particularly
with respect to Malevich)
Without necessarily agreeing with the recent tendency to denigrate the
avant-gardists and to argue that they were just as dictatorial as the
Socialist Realists of the 1930s would be [1], one can see how the avant-
gardists did in a sense play into the hands of totalitarianism. After
all, many of the avant-gardists did argue that their art "served the
Revolution", though in a complex way and one not necessarily immediately
comprehensible to the workers and peasants. From there, it was only too
easy to get to a point where the party's leadership said: "OK, we agree
that art must serve the Revolution. So the question is *who decides* what
serves the Revolution. And in art as elsewhere the party must take the
leading role in deciding this." And given the anti-avant-garde sympathies
of most of the party's leaders, it was all too easy to see how the party
would decide.
ObWI: A Nazi Germany more sympathetic to the avant-garde (of course only
to "Aryan" avant-gardists). The Expressionist poet Gottfried Benn was for
a while an outspoken supporter of the Nazis. Emil Nolde was a member of
the NSDAP (which of course didn't save him from having his paintings
denounced as "degenerate"). Anton Webern was also an admirer of Hitler.
Non-Germans who for a time sympathized with Hitler included such avant-
gardists as Ezra Pound (though he was more enthusiastic about Mussolini)
and Wyndham Lewis.
[1] Incidentally, there has also been a recent tendency to argue that
Socialist Realism was not as bad as its reputation, and that it did
produce good work by Deineka, Plastov, Korzhev, and others. See Matthew
Cullerne Bown, *Socialist Realist Painting*
http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/068441.htm and the review at
http://slate.msn.com/id/2924/
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
marc_ch
> But Hitler is the evil doer and Stalin is a hero in the war for democracy.
Well, despite the revisionist bilge taught in US schools, it was the
Russian Army that overtook Hitler, not the American.
marc
David Johnston
>I saw an interesting statistic a few weeks ago. Something along the
>lines of --
>
> Spanish Inquisition - 10 executions per week
> Lenin's Soviet Union - 1,000 executions per week
> Stalin's Soviet Union - 20,000 executions per week
>
>And which one is the most widely condemned? Why the Spanish
>Inquisition, of course! Why? Because for some odd reasons everybody
>wants to simply EXCUSE the Communists for the their bloodbaths.
Except, you know, for that not being true.
David Johnston
<se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>
>> What bullshit. Everyone condemns Stalin's terror. I'd agree that
>> Lenin's activities are probably not sufficiently discussed, but
>> Stalin's crimes are constantly talked about.
>
>Certainly they are. At the same time, you're far more likely to find
>someone defending Stalin's Soviet Union than defending the Inquisition.
I have only ever heard one person defending
Stalin's Soviet Union, and I've heard several people talking about
how the Inquisition wasn't really as bad as it's reputation makes it
out to be. So, based on my personal experience, I'd say that
wasn't true.
Sam R.
> > the 1920s but it wasn't anywhere near as revolutionary as the stuff
> > the Russians were producing. BTW to all detractors all of the Soviet
> > artists were true belivers in the Revolution, Boleshiveks all.
>
> enthusiastic about the Revolution.
And, of course, the avante-garde was fundamentally ultra-leftist, and
thus an opposition in being. Prolecult &tc. are the obvious example,
but the more "mainstream" avante-garde was also consistently to the
left of the party. A case of the difference between believing in the
Revolution, and Bolshevism.
> Also, Lunacharsky helped to protect experimental artists. But the days of
> the avant-garde were probably numbered...
In part because Lunacharsky didn't play the Party game particularly
well.
> BTW, there has been a recent tendency to argue that the avant-garde was
> not the victim but the perpetrator of totalitarianism: "As the art
> historian and philosopher Boris Groys expressed in his book
> Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin (Hanser Publishers 1988): 'The Stalinist time did
> indeed realize the avant-garde's dream of organizing the entirety of
> social life according to an overall artistic plan, although it was
> obviously not the one the avant-garde had in mind.'"
ObWI: nSk (~1980-) continues to work through a variety of these
themes. Perhaps their most important thesis is that politics is the
extension of art, and the state is a transmission belt for the
aesthetic. Obviously this mentality is ultra-*ist. In the case of
nSk their ideological position is a result of their aesthetic fusion
of socialist realist and avante-garde. In the case of the Russian
avante-gardists their ideology would lie somewhere to the left. Maybe
its too early to see the state as a form of artistic endevour, but it
does offer the potential for an alternate totalisation of the social
aesthetic in the 1930s.
I am picturing agit-trains, boats, trams and etc. revered as
semi-divine objects of themselves and their form. (Much like the
electrification drive.) As far as the painters go, the women painters
had a style of pure form abstracts which mirrored icons. High volume
semi-abstract fabric runs could make people accept the idea of
abstract artificial forms in everyday life. (Does this mean a
continuation of the NEP with fatal results in the 40s?) Would Soviet
peasants be receptive to art on the level of unintelligable religious
ritual? Malevich arguing for a painterlyness in rural production,
easy.
Dale
>
> ObWI: A Nazi Germany more sympathetic to the avant-garde (of course only
> to "Aryan" avant-gardists). The Expressionist poet Gottfried Benn was for
> a while an outspoken supporter of the Nazis. Emil Nolde was a member of
> the NSDAP (which of course didn't save him from having his paintings
> denounced as "degenerate"). Anton Webern was also an admirer of Hitler.
> Non-Germans who for a time sympathized with Hitler included such avant-
> gardists as Ezra Pound (though he was more enthusiastic about Mussolini)
> and Wyndham Lewis.
Hm. Maybe if less of the avant-garde was Jewish, Russian, Communist,
Socialist, Anarchist, or any combination of the above. There were
several important avant-garde and experimental artists with rightist
politics. Like the ones you mentioned above. Salvador Dali was a
supporter of Franco. However I will venture to say that the majority
of avant-garde artists had left-leaning politics even if they did flee
from the Soviet Union.
Even if the avant-garde movement was apolitical or rightist, it was
too Jewish for the Nazis. Remember it was labelled "dengenerate,
Jewish art" I think the Nazis extreme anti-semitism is the reason for
their eventual downfall. They could have had the atomic bomb but too
many of the theoretical physicsts who worked on the bomb at Los Alamos
were Jewish, part-Jewish or married to Jews.
Also the Nazis needed "social realism" for the same reason the Soviets
did.
Steve Hix
George Carty <g.j....@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
Well, it was part of an alliance that did...it didn't do it on its own.
You've also glossed over the millions in the Soviet Union who died
during the 20s and 30s as a direct result of its internal policies.
And a good number of Stalin's apologists operated during this pre-war
period, and they knew what was going on in Ukraine, etc.
Steve Hix
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
Of course not, not "everyone".
What's amazing is that *anyone* would want to defend that regime.
Steve Hix
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
So much for a single data point.
There is plenty of evidence of Stalinist apologists, such as Walter
Duranty (who knew, at the time he was writing, of the deaths then
occurring as a direct result of Soviet internal policies), Armand
Hammer, Andrew Murray, ...
Rich Rostrom
>
>I have only ever heard one person defending
>Stalin's Soviet Union
Two words: Eric Hobsbawm. (Does he explicitly defend Stalinism?
No. But he has said that mass murder would be justified if it
brought about Communist utopia.)
Oh, and you might look at the activities of Arthur
Scargill (not a scholar, but certainly a major public
figure, and yes, an unabashed admirer of Stalin).
One might also note Hollywood's recent hagiographic
biopic of Stalin-worshiper Frida Kahlo.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were | Rich Rostrom
there eighty? Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there | rrostrom
was only one, and the attributes of all of them will be combined | .21stcentury
into his compressed and and consensus story. | @omitthis
--- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_ | .rcn.com
David Johnston
<se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>In article <400306ab...@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:05:06 -0800, Steve Hix
>> <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> What bullshit. Everyone condemns Stalin's terror. I'd agree that
>> >> Lenin's activities are probably not sufficiently discussed, but
>> >> Stalin's crimes are constantly talked about.
>> >
>> >Certainly they are. At the same time, you're far more likely to find
>> >someone defending Stalin's Soviet Union than defending the Inquisition.
>>
>> I have only ever heard one person defending
>> Stalin's Soviet Union, and I've heard several people talking about
>> how the Inquisition wasn't really as bad as it's reputation makes it
>> out to be. So, based on my personal experience, I'd say that
>> wasn't true.
>
>So much for a single data point.
>
>There is plenty of evidence of Stalinist apologists, such as Walter
>Duranty
Duranty? How are you going to find him defending Stalin without
consulting a medium? How long has he been dead now?
Yes, at one time there were plenty of Stalin apologists. (Well,
considering the enormous amount that Stalin had to apologise
for.) But when someone says "You're far more likely to find someone
defending Stalin than the Inquisition" they are speaking in the
present tense. Even then, if you travel back in time to the 30s
when Duranty babbling, and then ask devout Catholics about all that
Inquisition stuff, I bet you could find plenty of people willing to
argue that the Protestants made a bigger deal out of the Inquisition
than the reality and even some prepared to claim that it was a
necessary exercise in soul saving.
made a bigger deal out of it than it deserved
Jack Linthicum
Where does this leave the actuality that the Soviet Union revered and
supported the mores and furniture of the era they overthrew? One of
the god-awful aspects of life in the Soviet paradise was the
comparison between really old buildings and interiors which were
surviving and the crumbling shoddiness of post WWII construction and
living conditions.