MovieChat Forums > Good Bye Lenin! (2004) Discussion > 'OSTALGIE' AND 'MAGIC SOCIALIST REALISM'...

'OSTALGIE' AND 'MAGIC SOCIALIST REALISM' reserved for SERIOUS discussion

posted 17 years ago by gustaff90
78 replies | jump to latest

I just wonder if only the ex-USSR citizens like me (mind me, I'm only 25 now, though!) feel immesurable sadness while watching this movie. I could never quite perceive it as a comedy. I cry every time when I see its opening titles (especially the boy's T-shirt bearing the Soviet cosmonaut-related mark and stamps featuring the DDR first austronaut), which is so puzzling, 'cause I'm by no means in favour of the old system, am studying abroad at the present, and, so to say, benefit in every way from the collapse of the old system. Maybe, it's just because it looks like my childhood depicted so lovingly on the screen?

I would appreciate so much if you, my unknown friends, would share your own recollections and feelings evoked by this beautiful movie. Apart from the excellent depiction of a son's love for mother, WHAT EXACTLY WAS ABOUT THIS MOVIE MAKING YOU CRY WHILE WATCHING THE ALMOST SURREAL, SHABBY AND HIGHLY RESTRICTED SOCIALIST WORLD WHICH WAS DOOMED TO FALL DOWN ANYWAY?

And finally, fot those who read Pelevin either in Russian or in translation:
This movie has so many things in common with "OMON RA", an early novel by Pelevin. It's about an amazing and inexplicable human capacity to retain dreams while living in almost intolerable conditions, dream of space flights while lacking basic living facilities and facing political oppression and daily threats to your life... Maybe such conditions should not be reproduced in future - they are associated with gross violations of human rights etc - but it can hardly be denied that they are very conducive to making feats like space exploration, to creativity etc. There's something in oppressive systems which is lacking in our new capitalist world, something which cannot be explained in competition and monetary incentive terms.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR IDEAS!

[–] maxorama01 17 years ago

I found it a very touching movie, and I'm 15 living in the U.S. That a son would go to such great lengths to keep his mother's utopian dream alive is what got to me.

[–] psi_rover 17 years ago

Exactly, don't disect it so much cause this film is about love and feelings, and not those objective concepts...

Daniel Brühl is simply the best!!!

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/danielbruhlfanz/

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

Hi

Well at the moment I'm at university studying the European Union. As part of understanding Germany's history, we looked at East Germany. My lecturer recomended we see this movie as positive spin on communism that is almost never potrayed (and for good reason).

I have to say that it does make a rather good point of showing the positives and negatives of both old and new Berlin. The 'shabby' stability of old Berlin and the new uncertainty, and sometimes harsh realities of western democracy, are almost juxtaposed.

I am also aware that this movie probably didnt set out to re-create life behind the wall, but non the less it is out there putting this view across. So from a political standpoint, I can sympathise with what is happening.

But i must say I was not very happy about how the repressive nature of the government was almost ignored. Granted it *is* a comedy, but none the less the feeling could not have been that cosy for people.

Anyway I did enjoy it, though I was thinking it would be more of a political satire than a heart-warming view of son and mother relations. Either way it was well done, but any bold statements about how good East Germany was seems to fly in the face of reality.

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

Dear receiver-2005,

Happy to see an analytical comment on this board. Would really appreciate, though, if you elaborate a bit more on your view of the "repressive nature of the government" in East Germany.

At the moment I'm studying at a university in Japan (doing my PhD), and my thesis is about the Soviet exploration of the Arctic. I am fully aware now, after reading tens of books (by both Russian and Western scholars), how high was the price of the accelerated exploration, the enormous death tolls in forced labour camps in the North etc. But the results of these efforts were nevertheless highly impressive, they laid foundations of the urbanization and speeded development of the Asiatic part of Russia.

Why am I talking about this? Because freedom of speech and purchasing ability of an individual are not everything you need to become happy.

One thing which springs to my mind is environmental problems, which are inevitably caused by the application of the market economy principles. People are encouraged to spend (if not coerced into spending) on a myriad of useless things, including cosmetics, clothes (a thousandth blouse, which you will only put on once or twice, because you have only one body), a new model of some electronic device, while the old one was in perfect condition etc etc.

The excesses of consumerism are shown in the dramatic scene in that movie, where a daughter sells her father a hamburger, and he never cares to looks in her face, 'cause sellers and shop assistants are not humans, but mere devices for satisfying our whims.

While being a non-religious person, I strongly believe in the need for self-restriction and the advantages of austere life. A lot of people in the late Soviet period were concentrated on their spiritual development, hence the emergence of hundreds of talented sing-song writers, amazing works of literature, beautiful poetry. Producing stuff like that is made more difficult in the market economy, because your primary goal will be to actually SELL it...

Sorry for this rambling style of writing. I guess my point can be summarized in the following way: there is a multitude of tiny details and circumstances which contribute to our being happy, and the majority of them is not necessarily determined by the political system or regime in power. People tend to overlook this phenomena. The director of the movie also showed us that there is no universal recipe for making us happy, and that it is our aspirations that make people's life meaningful. For an East German cosmonaut, the communist period in the history of his country was the happiest one, while in the new life he is reduced to the humiliating position of a taxi driver.

Would love to hear your new comments and continue the discussion.

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

I should mention that I'm a 3rd year arts student, and as such have not done the extensive reading that someone with a PhD has done. But I do know however, that it is not in human nature to feel "happy" in a world where they are spied on, assinated, dissappear or are condemned in a fixed trial. I do not feel that an oppressive regime such as that in the USSR, could in anyway have added to the happiness of it's citizens.

Having said that, I can agree with the fact that many aspects of western consumerism is indeed unhealthy. I can also can sympathise with the East Germans when they felt they needed to buy all the useless items as you have
mentioned, but with the little money they had to do it with. In one sense, having nothing and being austere can have the capacity to bring a culture of
self-reliancy that cannot be found in the western world too easily.

So when I say that the communist era was repressive, It is a fact that the state did not care about the individual, and it was easier to make people
'dissappear'. How can one build a life when that thought is in the back of your head? But to agree with the negatives of western society, it can lead to
over-indulgence of useless items.

BUT IT IS THE CHOICE AND FREEDOM OF THAT INDIVIDUAL
THAT MAKES HIM HAPPIER THAN THE REPRESSIVE CONTROLS OF
A STATE-RUN SOCIETY

[–] tody711 17 years ago

I watched the movie since (as an American) I spent some time in East Berlin in the 1980's and wanted to see their take on it. And I think it was a wonderful movie. I remember the clock where the people could see what time it was in New York but could not go there. And the Trabant cars. And the Pioneers. I was really surprised when the wall fell and I closely followed the news. It was harder for the people in the east to accept their new found freedom than it was for the west to accept their new 'citizens'. I remember the wall, lots of graffiti on the western side and plain grey on the eastern side, all the guard towers, the dogs, etc. Imagine just overnight total freedom! Yes, it probably was very hard on the old and uneducated that were so dependent on the DDR government, but for the young and the educated it was incredible freedom! An amazing part of history. So I do understand his reluctance to let his mother know about the 'real state of beloved country'.

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

That was really good analysis, enjoyed reading it! I think that you right about that too. I guess to someone who has lived an entire life being directed into a certain role or occupation in society, and having that security taken away so quickly, would very overwhelming.

Simularly the youth are also vocal about the need for change. I know during Soviet Russia, the reforms that Gorbachov pushed through allowed for a torrent of protests. It seems that left/right divide is also a clash of generations, something that i think was shown very well in the movie.

[–] tody711 17 years ago

Among other memories I remember the old (? - maybe not) lady in the dowdy old coat with the ratty old broom and her sole job was sweeping the streetcar tracks after the train had passed... A meaningless job but she did have a place in society, a reason to get up and get dressed and go to 'work'. Imagine when the wall fell and her 'job' was gone. There were thousands of people like her. What happened to them?

And I remember one day when I was there it turned chilly and I went to the 'big department' store in Alexanderplatz and there under the glass was a lone long sleeve white t-shirt. Only one, and nothing else. I bought it with black market DDR marks for about $1.00 and put it on. I was then warm but I felt sorry for those who truely needed it and could not afford it. The 'department store' had very few things in it. A few poorly made sports shoes, etc. But I still felt badly about being the 'rich American' who bought their only t-shirt. And that t-shirt was well made, at least it lasted about a year or so.

So many memories. I am glad I got to see places like East Berlin and Moscow (when it was communist). And I treasure my American Passport.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

dndnvn,

One thing I have noticed with many neo-marxists that THEY claim an ideal of a workers utopia, with the state sponsered erradication of exploited work and private property. I gave thought as to why it does not work in practice. As you said, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means they own their own means of production, but I wonder how many soviets (as in the workers unions) are willing to give up their hold on power and come to a satisfactory, stable and democratic government? Once you have a strong centralised government in place (AKA Lenin, Stalin etc.), it has every chance to become a dictatorship.

I cannot ever see a marxist society developing in a nation that has a welfare system (specifically thinking of the Russian revolution and its poverty), nor can I EVER see a truely marxist nation. If socialism is to work in any way, progressive sociallism is your best bet. Im thinking of Finland and its high tax rate and extremely generous welfare benefits. But I'm not convinced that radical marxism is a particularly good idea. Capitalism inherantly allows for social and economic advancement. A lowly paid waiter will probably not want to rise in revolt of the system when they know that after they finish university, that there is a strong chance they will fall into the middle or upper-middle class. I put myself into that catergory ;)

I apologise if it is slightly off topic, but it is something I think is worth discussing.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

"Ah, but its precisely because I want to leave behind a life of forced austerity that I am a communist."

Is life in western society particularly austere? I would say that the capitalist system and consumerism allows for individuals to purchase the comforts of life. In fact western liberalism has proved to be the most affluent of all civilisations, for better or worse.

I'm also very confused about what you mean by 'worker'. Does the term 'worker' encompass everyone who contributes to society? In that case everyone inside the state can be said to be a worker. Or do you mean the the ones who produce the goods and services? In that case, any business owner or factory owner or bankers would also be part of this, for they manage the means of production for the benefit of themselves and for those who they employ. It also happens to be the most efficient, because efficiency means increased profits or status. I read parts of Adam Smith, and he came to that conclusion. To take that away and put it under the leadership of a state that may not know how to run that industry would be disasterous. China is a good example; most of the boom has come from foreign investment, and not by chinese state companies.

The friction came from when the factory 'fodder' were paid abysmal wages, worked 12 hour days and had very poor overall conditions. This was largely addressed in the 1890's firstly in Australia and New Zealand (wage commitees), and adopted by Britain. The USA only had social security after the impact of the great depression in the 1930's. By this time, capitalism was entrenched (in my own opinion) and the real battle was not in radical communism vs capitalism, but in the struggle between left and right in the west. By this time, the USSR had chosen its road and was trying to make it work.

I'm interested in the great strike of 1917 in Melbourne and Sydney, and a lot of what happend there supports my ideas.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

Dear dndnvn,

I read carefully the following part of your post and still failed to see how the economic progress (growth) achieved in capitalist economies et the expense of the global environment can be attained without these negative consequences. The same problems dogged, even on a greater scale, the Soviet Union and countries of the socialist bloc. In your analysis they appear as being exaggerated by "bourgeouis" governments, but as the Roman Club stated in the 70s, they cannot be overlooked any more! THERE ARE LIMITS TO ECONOMIC GROWTH, public transport system CAN BE MADE MORE EFFICIENT, and leading a more austere life (that is, without indulging in buying all the unnecessary stuff which is forced on you by advertising) might look not as grim as you're trying to show.

Now, I still find the global warming concept a bit dubious, that is lacking scientific grounds, but what's wrong with encouraging car share schemes, more walking and cycling? It will ultimately benefit you too, because people living in modern urban societies have almost no chance to exercise. And because pollution once posed such a grave danger to human health in Britain as well in Japan, where I live now. I would agreem though, that making these choices - and not being forced to accept these alternatives against your will - is crucial, and that is the advantage of democratic societies.

There's no reversing scientific and technical progess, and yet abstention from the excessive affluence of modern consumerist societies is morally, economically and environmentally justified. I you can do without a certain thing, why buy it? Why owe more that you can possibly use up and utilize? Why ditch things when their product life is not over yet? Why recycle paper to use it then for printing useless ads which most people will throw as soon as they disover them in mailboxes?

CONSUMERISM is the ugliest product of capitalist economies. It is ruining our planet. Hope one day most people on the globe will realize how dangerous the consequences (footprint) of their mindless spending are - spending substituted religious and ideological ideals, and possession is regarded as the ultimate purpose of work and life.

PEOPLE, ARE YOU HAPPY? And what makes you happy?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

I have just realised that the Australian and English experiances are indeed very different. Australia has never really had a strong heavy industry, and thus most of the marxist rhetoric has come in times of great turmoil. The 1917 'great strike' in Sydney and Melbourne is a great example of of pro-capitalist idealogy, but anti-right wing methods. The general story is as follows:

The government railways wanted to introduce a 'punch card' system that was being implemented in America, something which the workers themselves did not like, and so they striked. To counter the strike, the government employed 'scabs' to do their work. But other indusries refused to work with scabs, and within a month, 100,000 people were on strike in in three states (NSW QLD and VIC).

But there was a great article written by Lucy Taksa, in which she says the protesters were against communism and the IWW. The evidence is compelling because the leaders of the various unions said they reject communism but want a 'fair go' for workers. There is other evidence but I cannot remember off the top of my head.

I have read all of the latest postings, and it seems to me that it is country specific as to why you are a communist, dndnvn. Public transport in Melbourne is very good, as it is many other cities around the world. Environmentalism is a big issue, but not a pressing one, because we only have 20 million people and do not produce the pollution as England does. Australia has a strong tradition of social democracy, as opposed to England's and the USA's strong liberal democracies. Australia has never been a major industrial nation (we do agriculture, light manufacturing, trading and services very well) where as England sees itself as a major world player in finance, technology and advanced manufacturing. We also embrace the SPIRIT of egalitarianism. We know that some a richer than others, the myth is that a millionair would go to the same pub as his workers do is widely believed, and I don't doubt that it happens here. But in England the social hierarchy is much much more obvious and entrenched that it would be unthinkable.

But in many ways we are simular too. Australia's population is the most urbanised in the entire world (we like living in cities), we have western liberal values, the system is staunchly capitalist and we are essentially multi-cultural. England can claim multi-culturalism, but has a much stronger sense of a conservative "britishness" about it. Australia does not have a fear of immigration, Although some very right wing reactionaries politicians have come forward.

Surely these differences alter the outcome of human happiness? I cannot see how it is a matter of economic class differences more than it is national culture and expectations. I cannot see how ones economic status and job seems to dictate their allegiances to their political party. If I may say, I think communism is dead in Australia, and I don't see it happening in any western society.

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

Dear dndnvn,

I enjoyed your profound analysis of the gap between the Sein and Sollen (am I right using these terms?) of socialist societies. I would also add one comment, which might be too obvious to restate, but nevertheless... People definitely feel nostalgia (ostalgie) for they days of youth, and many of them, like my parents, were so young and energetic, and idealist, and they dreamt of contributing to society, and DID NOT PERCEIVE THEMSELVES THE VICTIMS of their, no dounbt, oppressive regimes. So for many of them it might be wierd if not painful to be asked (like my folks when they came to visit me in Japan) if they had felt "degenerated" or "oppressed". They were engaged in their professional acitivites, and too busy to reflect on this! (They're even busier now running their small businesses and trying to survive in the MNC-dominated competition world, like my family is now).

Reflecting on the past sometimes is confused with denying your past, that is questioning the meaning of million lives lived under those regimes. There were oppressors, there were predators and victims, and there were just honest people trying to live their lives, raise children etc. When theorists start joggling with the concepts of "democracy", different economic systems etc they tend to overlook people standing behind these abstract notions

[–] tody711 17 years ago

Another thing I remember doing is climbing up stairs to stand on a platform (in West Berlin) by the wall and looking over into East Berlin. I remember the zone close to the wall on the east side where patrols of men and dogs constantly monitored. And I remember a young guy (a teenager probably) in an apartment building in East Berlin standing at a window in his apartment and giving me the finger! He know he he was not free and that I was. Maybe he felt like a prisoner or an animal in a zoo? I always wondered what happened to him after the wall fell. A lot of west Berlin folks would climb on those platforms to watch the people in the east. Streetcars in the east would end their journey close to the wall zone, the people would get off, walk away and not look up, not look at the wall. But they knew we were up there watching them. I always wondered how they felt.

When the wall first fell some East Berliners carefully and slowly went to West Berlin, looked around a bit and went home. Next time they went over they bought a few little things then went home. And then they went over, went into the stores and took whatever they wanted They said it was their right to have those things they had been denied. Many people in West Berlin did not like these actions by the East Berliners. It was not a happy time in Berlin for awhile. I have not been back for 10 years so now I only know what I read.

I wasn't into politics so much as the social aspect of the people, both West and East. How they dealt with their plight. The people in East Berlin could pick up TV stations from West Berlin so they could see what material goods they were 'denied'. The American military had TV staions that could be picked up if someone could get ahold of an American TV. I sold a TV antenna for a nice price as this guy (in the West) was convinced that if he had an American TV antenna he could get American stations on his TV. I tried to convince him otherwise but he would not listen. I think he ended up getting the sound but not the picture. Blue jeans were the big thing to 'smuggle'into the East (Berlin and Moscow - but that is another story).

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

Dear Tody711,

In Russia, shortly after the Iron Curtain fell, we did feel the same, I suppose. Even young kids like me - and I was around 10 then. We felt that we were "denied" McDonald's hamburgers, "Tom and Jerry" and Disney cartoons, "Cadberry" chocolate bars and posh cars. Everything we were used to - films, songs, clothes (these were the most horrible ones), canned food and even Russian cuisine seemed so shabby, sudennyl outshined by the affluence flwing from the West.

But now, 10 years from that peak of denial, even young people like me (though probably not the younger generation who simply do not remember the Soviet period) feel so differently!

I am not nationalist or a zealous patriot, but I lost taste for so many of the things which I thought were cool in adlescence. 10 years ago my family would spend hours waiting in a queue to have luch at McDonald's, but now - I go to Moscow at least 1-2 times a year - I prefer Russian cuisine (well, I'm residing abroad now, maybe it's the reason), not because it's superior, but simply because I feel Russian eating then (and it's not bad at all)! When buying clothes, I always try to buy stuff made in my country or at least in Belarus and other former Soviet republics. I'm much more interested in the history of my country now, while I felt almost ashamed of it reading textbooks at high school. I developed a taste for our folk songs. And I will probably get back to Sieria as soon as I'm through with my thesis.

Do you remember a scene in the film where Alex steps into his father's new flat in West Berlin and catches a glimpse of his stepbrother and stepsister watching the DDR cartoons? I think I know precisely how he felt at that moment. I cannot suppress tears evene when I'm listening to the Soviet songs f the 30s-50s which can be labeled as propaganda and are definitely politically charged. But then there's the beautiful melody created by a talented composer and a haunting crystalline voice of the young singer...

And after living abroad this 'ostalgie' grows even stronger. Partly because you realize that on the other side of the Iron Curtain people knew little, and could not care less about that 'socialist' mass culture. And this makes you feel concerned about and responsible for the destiny of the culture of the Soviet period, which is in danger of extinction. You feel a bit lost in this alien world, washed ashore the inhospitable capitalist continent, and all you are left with is your identity built upon the socialist foundation.And the same time you feel suspicious that people from the capitalist world of affluence and opne borders, look down on you anyway, that they will never accept you as an equal.

Maybe these are the roots of 'ostalgie', what do you think?

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Yes, I know what you mean. Today people sometimes hide when listening songs from old days, as they were hiding listening certain "contrarevolutional", "right-wing", "antisocialist" songs, or reading such books few decades ago. And I remember the trembling on the border when returning to homeland (those who were lucky to be allowed to travel abroad) if carrying something as suspicious and questionable as a LP record (does your generation have any idea what it was, and how important it was for former generations?). But now, having all that free, we don't find it so intriguing, interesting, titillating, taunting. We also tasted McDonald and asked what the hell do people on the west find in that tasteless... well, let's be polite. We can buy whatever west offers, and suddenly realised that our old crap is at least same if not better quality than that greatly advertised legendary stock from west (or far east).

However, you are lucky to be Russian. Considering yourself nationalist or not, you are free to be one or to act as one if you want. But belonging to a smaller nation this behaving is considered a mortal sin. Each flag you show, each time you use your national colors, each time you sing your anthem, each time you say you are proud to be what you are - and both you and your whole nation is in trouble. As if nothing had changed: before 90's nationalism was opposite (and therefore contrarevolutionary) to international proletarian revolution; today it is Europe who incriminates every sign of national in eastern countries.

Another difference is what happened in early 90's. If your country experienced the war, you surely wouldn't be so glad to buy goods from neighbourhood countries, or to remember how good were the years when they controlled the "mutual" army and had all the power.

But on the other side are old, proud, righteous, divine (and most important: rich) nations that don't even let your country use its own name... send people who fought for freedom to international courts... allow parts of your country to claim independence... deny right of people to chose their government... make list of people or nations that are allowed to enter their countries (great! for decades we were not let OUT by our regime, now they don't let us IN...). And, the feeling is even more bitter, because during those 45 years all East European nations were constantly urged to remove socialist parties from reign and join the free world that is impatiently waiting for them.

So, as you see, some people and some nations have even more doubts about this issue.

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

Dear Tody711,

I enjoyed reading about your first-hand experiences in Berlin in the late 80s.

In Russia, shortly after the Iron Curtain fell, we did feel the same, I suppose. Even young kids like me - and I was around 10 then. We felt that we were "denied" McDonald's hamburgers, "Tom and Jerry" and Disney cartoons, "Cadberry" chocolate bars and posh cars. Everything we were used to - films, songs, clothes (these were the most horrible ones), canned food and even Russian cuisine suddenly seemed so shabby, far outshined by the affluence flowing from the West.

But now, 10 years from that peak of denial, even young people like me (though probably not the younger generation who simply do not remember the Soviet period) feel so differently!

I am not a nationalist or a zealous patriot, but I surprisingly lost taste for so many of the things which mesmerized me in adlescence.

10 years ago my family would spend hours waiting in a queue to have lunch at McDonald's, but now - I go to Moscow at least 1-2 times a year - I prefer borshch and pelmeni at a reasonbly cheap place (well, I'm staying abroad now, maybe it's the reason). Not because I7m convinced it's healthier or superior, but simply because I feel at home when I eat the familiar food.

When buying clothes, I always try to buy stuff made in my country or at least in Belarus or other former Soviet republics. I'm much more interested in the history of my country now, whereas I felt almost ashamed of it reading textbooks at high school. I developed a taste for our folk songs and the local history of the area I come from. And I will probably get back to Siberia as soon as I'm finished with my thesis.

Do you remember a scene in the film where Alex steps into his father's new flat in West Berlin and catches a glimpse of his stepbrother and stepsister watching the DDR cartoons? I think I know precisely how he felt at that moment. I cannot suppress tears even when I'm listening to the Soviet songs of the 30s-50s, which were undoubtedly intended to serve as propaganda and are politically charged. But then there's the beautiful melody created by a talented composer and a haunting crystalline voice of the young singer...

And after living abroad this 'ostalgie' grows even stronger. Partly because you realize that on the other side of the Iron Curtain people knew little, and could not care less about that 'socialist' mass culture. And this makes you feel concerned about and responsible for the destiny of the culture of the Soviet period, which is in danger of extinction. You feel a bit lost in this alien world, washed ashore the inhospitable capitalist continent, and all you are left with is your identity built upon the socialist foundation. And at the same time you feel slef-conscious and suspicious that people from the capitalist world of lavish lifestyles and open borders, look down on you, that they will never accept you as an equal. A protective feeling?

Maybe these are the roots of 'ostalgie', what do you think?

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

receiver_2005-1 on Fri Apr 27 2007 20:08:32

Simularly the youth are also vocal about the need for change. I know during Soviet Russia, the reforms that Gorbachov pushed through allowed for a torrent of protests. It seems that left/right divide is also a clash of generations, something that i think was shown very well in the movie.

=========================

At the beginning, in the late 80s it might have seemed like this, but then the divide in society turned out to be a more complex phenomenon: to assert that young people benefited from the fall while the older lost, that the "old and undeducated", as tody 711 wrote, clung to the old system while the "young and educated" embraced it with both hand is too much of oversimplification.

In modern Russia so many young people disenchanted with the notion of democracy join the ranks of extremist, nationalist and communist groups, which might appear puzzling on the surface, but can be logically explained if you look deeper.

We were deprived, to a certain extent, of the free choice of out profession. We had to "sell" ourselves on the labour market after graduation, so that many of my classmates chose law and economics departments, and I concentrated on Japanese and English to be able to earn my living later. But I know that me and a couple of my friends could do much more as researchers, I had dreamt since my perestroika childhood of learning ancient Greek and Latin, and devote my life to the study of the history of Ancient Rome and Greece, but I was robbed of that choice. Even when I won the scholarship and came to Japan for my MA and PhD, I had surprisingly little freedom in choosing the direction and topic of research. Many of my fellow Japanese graduate students are so worried about their employment after finishing their studies, that they cannot really properly concentrate on what they're studying.

I think that intelligentsia and people of such "impractical" pursuits as that German cosmonaut had to lose a lot. The economic and social policies of the capitalist period which followed perestroika was too short-sighted...

Did you hear about the HDI - Human Development Index - which is adopted in the UNDP reports to describe the state of society in different countries? The ultimate question is HUMAN HAPPINESS, and while I agree with all of you 100% that CIVIL RIGHTS are indispensable to human development, the progress achieved in the field of SOCIAL RIGHTS seems to be reversing.

Longer working hours (and some enterpises exploit their workers so ruthlessly they should be called sweatshops), less time spent with the family and children, the flourishing casinos (fortunately in Russia they were forced to retreat in special districts), consumerism and ugly mass culture. I weep for my country.

Alex's mother in the film was neither old nor uneducated, but would she be too happy about the changes? I know too little about the life in reunited Germany and hope you will provide some enlightening commentary.

[–] Seanpdineen 12 years ago

Its very moving. Friend if your still around, I'd love to talk about the pioneers disabled doctoral student trying to get English info about GDR and USSR youth groups for dissertation.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

"it is not in human nature to feel "happy" in a world where they are spied on, assinated, dissappear or are condemned in a fixed trial"

Are you talking about old Soviet Union or modern world?

Just try to send an e-mail containing any questionable words that might disturb FBI or similar organisations, or make a similar cellular call. You will surely feel very free and not-spied.

And as for fixed trials, analyze the way Hague international court works; also inform yourself about the decision of USA government that none of their citizens can be sent to international courts (and blackmailing smaller nations to make separate contracts in which they accept this decision, otherwise they'll lose all privileges; while in the same time USA demands extradition of those countries' citizens, again threatening the same consequences).

And sometimes even fixes trials are not something a person can expect, as USA told us when they decided that their prisoners can be held in jail (e.g. Guantanamo) without trial for unlimited period.

I'm not defending USSR. They had power and felt as if they can rule the world. Now we have someone else ruling the world, and it seems that it is immanent to that position to act the same way.

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

przgzr,

Never have I said I am an expert on international security, nor does that field interest me in any great way. But I do know about the Australian legal system, as well as history and politics.

Surely you would agree that a democratic government such as Australia's, there is less chance of a fixed trial. There is an inbuilt check-and-balance via judicial transparency which is accessable to anyone from the public. Also the free media can report on any misdemenors that the system may create. There is even in-built commitees to review court systems, which was enshrined in the 1901 federation constitution.

To my knowledge, the USSR did not have such checks and balances. Perhaps trials were very fair and justice was dealt accordingly, but you must concede there was more abuse of their systems than in countries such as Australia, simply because there was little accountability if the state wished a certain sentence to be passed.

Australia is also very different from the USA or USSR, simply because it does not have super-power status. Even if the FBI spied on certain people, the official language gives the illusion that it is free and democratic. (something which has been critised, and done so legitamately). Until the peristroika days, speaking out could entail 'disappearing' in many soviet states. No-one can tell me that does not help nor hinder human happiness.

As for modern day USA, I'm not entirely sure I'm too concerned with their policies. I'm not from there, it does not affect me, and Australia's judicial processes are more comparable to Britain's than the USA's.

Perhaps you should fill me in on the details of when the FBI has made their citizens 'disappear'?

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I skipped the word "disappear". I also don't believe that FBI could be involved in that; but as I don't live in USA I won't say a word about things I don't know for sure.

I also don't live in Australia, and I hope you'll be able to preserve your freedom including law and court system. However, the role of Masters of the Universe that was (unofficially) attributed to one nation by its leaders means that they expect other vassal states to accept their customs, way of life, laws, and conduct them even stricter than the Powerland does it. Many nations don't have tradition, strenght, are not large and rich like Australia, so... (I wish you read also my replies to the opening poster).

And as I have spent not only my early childhood, but many adult years as well, in a country that enabled its citizens all the joys and benefits of jailing people for a single joke (with no chances to get a decent job after returning), distinguishing them by the political sins of family members (sometimes even by "questionable" village they were born in), deciding who is eligible, apt, even moral, only according to one criteria (being a member of the Only Party), losing jobs in public services if going to church (even only for wedding)... you don't have to describe me justice or the happiness of citizens living in "the best of all existing systems".

[–] receiver_2005-1 17 years ago

I feel your passion here,

So then you are agreeing with me that communism (as it is known thus far) is not the human utopia as it set out to be? I was looking at this website called "the political compass" - www.politicalcompass.org - This test shows your political leaning. I guess it also shows whether or not you would fit into a stalinist regime or libertarian democracy. It's a bit of popcorn, but it is still interesting.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

The idea of communism is great. Unfortunatelly none of the so-called communist or socialist regines has ever approached to it, in fact they were much further from communism than for instance Sweden or Norway are today.

Communism is in theory an ideal social system. However, ideal system requires ideal participants, and we are very far apart from that. It needs big evolution changes in human society, brains, maybe even biology, and as much as we see those small evolution steps that can be noticed and maybe show the direction where it's going - it is not giving much chance that humankind will ever be able to develop the level necessary to implement communism. Maybe one day we'll be, as a species, replaced by some better, more advanced one (maybe even radical changes like mammals replacing dinosaurs) and communism will have to wait them.

[–] senkisem 17 years ago

Dear receiver 2005-1, you wrote: "So when I say that the communist era was repressive, It is a fact that the state did not care about the individual[...]" - You are completely mistaken, and statements like this it clearly shows that you have no idea whatsoever as to how the life in a so-called socialist country really was.

In fact: when a state offers 100% employment, free [and good] medical/dental care, free [and good] education, etc., it means that it does care about individuals [and regardless the financial state of those].

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

100 percent of anything is pure demagogy because it is impossible to achieve. But there had to be 100 percent of everything, like Enver Hoxha getting 100 percent votes on "free" elections, and 100 percent of population voted (including dying, unconscious etc). It was just the image, these governments believed they could fool the rest of the world with these numbers. The effect was the opposite, people abroad recognized the fraud and soon started ignoring all reports from socialist countries, failing to recognize many really good sides of life beyond Iron Curtain.

Doing their best to approach as close as this 100 percent could be reached, these governments made several mistakes that finally led to collapse of their societies.

The best example is employment: to have as close to 100 percent adults employed, they forbid firing people for any reasons. So it was possible for someone even to steal tools or products, but their superiors could do nothing. People who didn't want to work (e.g. for being lazy) kept their jobs till retirement. The consequence was that somebody else had to do his job, and so he/she was working twice as much for the same salary - because of this overprotected sluggard who got the same money and usually laughed at those who worked his job. You could often hear people saying: "They can't pay me so little as little I am able to work."

So you can't say that government did their best for the equal good of all their citizens.

[–] senkisem 16 years ago

If unemployment does not exists [which WAS the case in the Socialist countries] it mean 100% employment.
In North America e.g., the hidden unemployment rate is about 95%, as only 5% of the population make useful work [remember: things are getting manufactured and assembled abroad] - the rest is just filler [e.g, working in a service sector, in money business, whatever], who do not come up with any product, only they squeeze themselves in between the producer and the customer and try to make a living on the accounts of those [ultimately: the customer].

It is true that most of the people barely worked 8 hours in an 8-hour shift - maybe 7 or 6. But it does not much differ anywhere else now. If you are talking about frauds [corruptions. etc.], look around yourself now - and you can find a lot more of it (minus the social security). As for the common belief that socialist system was economically ineffective - I do not think the USA is a socialist country, yet it has collected over 8 trillion dollars [and counting] in debt.

As for getting a worker 2x the amount in wages than the other one - at least the difference was not 2000x [between e.g., a decent worker as a miner or carpenter and a CEO in Capitalism].

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

I can agree with you in some points, but as a rather old person who not only grew up but worked for years in socialism, I am free to think my observations are not just a pure propaganda for or against the regime.

About employment. It is easy to make full employment if you can invent a working place when you need it for a certain person. Every director, every smallest chief was free to employ whoever he wanted to, so when a neighbor, a relative, a member of sport team etc appeared to ask for someone's (good) job, it was mostly realized within few weeks. If director's sister, nephew, brother-in-law needed job, they didn't have to look for it anywhere else; was it director's son, he got his own office where he didn't have to appear except to collect salaries; once his father was in the age to retire, the son was there to sit into his chair. But there was no problem to gain money to pay these new workers. The Party officials from the firm simply made a call, and National Bank printed new money. This was the main generator of inflation in most socialist countries (in USSR probably army had the same effect on economy). Nobody cared if these firms produced anything, and quality has never been mentioned. In fact, it was forbidden to control it, because socialist working class couldn't produce anything less than perfect. (This is why accidents in factories, mines, spaceships etc usually haven't been revealed in public; this is the same mentality that led to covering up Chernobyl catastrophe.)

So, even when you count service sector, banks, army, art and entertainment, whatever you want, most of these people were employed but not working, let alone a useful and quality work. Just add all those meetings, mostly political, that always happened within working time, and lasted for hours, or different celebrations that always meant a free day (or even more).

And, a reply to your last paragraph: maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about enormous differences that you correctly point. I was comparing a lazy drunker who had a secure job and nobody was allowed to fire him, and his coworker that had to do both jobs (because there were jobs that must have been done in any regime - energetics, medicine, traffic, media...) and at the end of the month they got same sum of money - one for doing nothing, the other for working double job. No, really, there were no big differences in wages... only in work efforts and effects.

[–] codemaster-rus 16 years ago

It is very interesting to observe how people write about oppressive USSR regime. They have read books and articles, watched documentaries and might have spent hours in front of the History channel listening to ex-cons from gulags.

The thing that is often, if not always, overlooked is that fact that these are Western documentaries. Articles are written by Western authors, and the ex-cons are quite bitter.

The point is that you always have to look at things from several points of view. I'm not trying to say that oppression of free speech did not happen. I'm not saying that political prisons did not exist. In fact, a lot of my relatives went through them, and I know too well about their existence. However, as gustaf(original poster) said, it is not just the freedom of speech and consumerist power that are needed to make people happy.

If you think that USSR was like Oceania in 1984 you are greatly mistaken. If you think that people were taken in, tortured and killed "just because" - think again, who gave you that information? One of the Western historians? One of the most important thing about history that I have learned is that you should ALWAYS look at things from different sides of barricades. Truth is so much harder to find then simply going to the library and reading. Yes, you might get some historical accounts, insights and so on. But you will never find truth that way, rather an approximation.

I think USSR was rotting from the inside. As Mr. Putin said, whoever does not miss Soviet Union has no heart, but whoever wants it back has no brain (sorry if the quote is off, you can google it). Next time you're writing about horrible and deadly Soviet regime, think about the reasoning behind this quote. What is more important, think about this: how is it possible for people who "survived" the "horrible Soviet times" and who are quite well off in the new country to miss the old times? Maybe, just maybe, Western historians "forgot" to tell you something?

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

Sorry, but you forget that many of us here on these boards have spent a big part of our lives under this or similar regimes, and don't need any western preaching. We don't have to be told what was happening, because we have lived it, we saw things or heard them from eyewitnesses, or even people who survived their Calvary.

So without confirming capitalism as something desirable, I ask you not to offer us your demagogy. As if nothing has changed: whatever was said to be wrong in the regime, it was always "western propaganda".

And as for 1984., we can see similarities, but not as close as we can see in USA today. Unfortunately, it was USSR that enabled USA to become what it is now, because they could always use it as a reason to be afraid, and to let government more and more power. And once USSR stopped being a real danger, they had to find new enemies. Also, USSR never had so many technical supplies to perform such control of its own citizens (though I don't doubt that they would do it if they only had technology). Finally, this all enabled USA to perform a process of globalization, what is an euphemism for the most extreme subjugating of the whole known world since Roman Empire.

[–] supcik-928-911284 9 years ago

One is happy despite the oppression. I do not know how it is in Izrael and South Africa under appartheid but I presume it is similar. You just avoid confrontation, even in your mind and focus on the positives. On the other side if I recall Communists and their know-it-all party [not the idealistic 5%-15% but the evil opportunistic rest] I still feel some hatred and then a whim of happiness. It is so inexplicable to be suddenly free. It is not materialistic freedom of uberchoice (The queues and shortages have/had no meaning, we never starved and the food was more organic), but the freedom of speech and travel and not being obliged to play silly theatre. It is feeling GREAT. I refused to vote for people I did not know and was scolded by the school principal [who was there as the observant party boss at the school] in the early 80ties. Yet not much else happened I think vice principal liked me. It was sort of obligatory to be in the pioneer but just at the formal level. One was free to join boy scouts where the majority was conditioned by their families who hated communist party. Noone from my family was in the party and apart from demoting no harm was done. No rat race...

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

As a person who's much older than you and remembers much longer time spent in socialist regime country, I can both agree and disagree with you

Nostalgy appears more due to two psychological reasons (none of them having any political or ideological background): first, people grow old and wish they were young again, so everything that binds them to their youth induces nostalgy. Second, it is in human nature to forget, or at least repress what was bad and remember the beautiful moments (people suffering from depressive psychosis, or those who adore being martyrs and victims are excluded). The challenges people have been exposed to after 1990 surely increase their image of good, old days.

Also, it must be remembered that most people were either born or at least educated and spent their working years in socialism. Noone who is still employed remembers pre-communist years even in countries where socialism appeared in 1945., those who were old enough to work before WWII are not able to work now. Therefore noone has the experience what is the life in capitalism like, except those rare people who emigrated to west and then returned.

Consumerism you are talking about is the real problem of our society and there is nothing to justify it.

However, you show examples that deny some of your claims:

"For an East German cosmonaut, the communist period in the history of his country was the happiest one" and "how high was the price of the accelerated exploration, the enormous death tolls in forced labour camps in the North". Yes, SOME, or FEW people had a chance to have results, good chances, great life,
because of millions who enabled that by their poor and hard life. It can be compared to Roman Empire and majority of people being slaves, colons, soldiers in distant provinces, enabling great opportunities for patricians, who could become artists, scientists, politicians and their children had the same chances.

And environmental problems as global heat, water pollution etc. do appear as a consequence of consumerism, but let's remeber the greastest evnironmental disaster, Chernobyl, and the regime leading the country those years.

On the other hand, everything you say about art is not only truth, but is almost alleviated: there was no pressure on composers, writers, movie directors, painters to make profit. There was not much censorship except political: as long as you didn't doubt in communism and actual leaders you were quite free to make real art projects. It was, however, wise to make a book, movie, picture that would praise the Party and Lenin / Stalin / Honnecker / Hoxha / Tito / Ceausescu etc., to prove you follow their paths, and then you were again free to go where your inspiration led you. Yes, artist do have reason to mourn, and so do we who are not infected by modern art=entertaintment attitude.

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

Dear Przgzr,

(I hope you would not be too bothered by my annoying habit to addressing people personally - it gives the feeling of being involved in a real discussion)

I really appreciated your contributions, especially your first-hand experience of living in a country of the socialist bloc (I guess you are from Serbia, am I right?), and enjoyed your sharp analysis of the roots of (n)ostlagies. I reckon it is the main reason lying behind the steady level of support among the elderly that the resurrected Communist Party is enjoying in Russia, or say, Moldova at present. So strange to be affected by it at the age of 26, as I am now, but now I understand those pauperized people much better than 10 years ago...

I found the following 2 points in your enlightening messages most thought-provoking:

1) the predicament of medium-sized and relatively small countries which used to be forcefully drawn into the orbit of "superpowers" and after the 90s fell prey to the arrogant policies of the "first-class" states; as a person specializin in international law, I find these legal rules extremely hypocritical as they can easily be bent to serve the interests of the stronger party; as you point out, one of the typical examples is the waiver by countries like the US of the obligatory jurisdiction of the World Court while many smaller countries accept it - voluntarily or after some arm-twisting;

Yet there are some bright spots in this generally grim picture: a) I applauded the recent decision of the ICJ which rejected the claims of responsibility laid to Serbia AS A STATE, I read the Merits which were uploaded on the ICJ homepage and found it (well, I am an amateur) well-balanced and logical; was happy to find it free of political bias; b) as my supervisor says, in such areas as WTO panel arbitrations, there are numerous cases in which the USA and other giant and high-handed states actually lost to much smaller and weaker nations, which means that sometimes international law really contributes to promoting justice.

2) your personal experience of enjoying having that single LP; when I went back home last summer and walked into my room at the parents' house, I was struck by the realization that the most valuable for me were the things which I bought long long ago, when there were still shortages of such things as classical music, or certain books, or even a Barby doll, when I had only one and were sewing her clothes and making accessories for her by myself; it is one of the many aspect of ostalgies, that wonderful feeling which was killed by material abundance in the age of market economy and consumerism... Now I feel only nausea like that Sartre's character walking into department stores and always try to make my shopping as quickly as possible. Looking at the abudnace of the stuff displayed there inevitably diminishes the value of things that you own. Or sometimes I have that absurd feeling that owing one or a dozen of books is the same, 'cause in today's world we are too short of time to enjoy reading them leisurely... Because of the progress in communications and longer working hours we are robbed of our personal time, and is the reason why I feel so profoundly unhappy and insecure staying in the rich Japan and living on the scholarship. I am expected to produce results just as businesses turn out goods or profit, and this enslavement is even worse than idological: if you were clever enough you could escape into certain areas like art, writing, polar exploration etc, but you can never escape this voluntary slavery... They oversee you with the whip of competition and ou sometimes fuilty guilty just because you are relazing at the moment instead of working more... (Maybe I am just a maniac, correct me then - and I will feel extremely grateful to you - and relieved).

Sorry for this cumbersome piece of writing. It's too late in Japan to continue. Will be waiting for the posts from all of you guys, and am looking forward to further discussion.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Dear Gustaff!

All your statements hold the water tight - an expression probably not understand in all languages, meaning there is not a single hole where the water could leak, so this is something a man can completely agree with.

In fact I don't cry for communism at all. I cry because of what is it replaced by. Yes, people had rather good social and health security. They had also quite good employment chances and security of their working places. They usually didn't have to fear every morning if they'll be fired or they won't get paid at the end of month. But they had to fear each time someone knocked at the door, they had to fear if someone might identify them when going to church, or someone will hear them laugh at some political joke (no need to talk), or some relative won't return from abroad so whole family becomes suspect... I can't cry for that times and those regimes as well as I can't be happy seeing what it had all turned to.

I don't come from Serbia, but from Croatia. However, the difference is not a big one: if someone tries to put local relations aside, the perspective is pretty much the same. And there are more smaller countries I was refering to: it's not only Bosnia but we can remember even Austria been punished for chosing its president against the will of the powerful nations. I don't know if Waldheim did any war crimes during WWII, but that same man was the General Secretary of UN - while it was convenient to those who had power.

And hypocrisy seems to be the only constant in politics of the west. This example has something to do with your country, too. As a member of Natinal Geographic I got their map of the world published in 1989 or 1990. One special note was added in the bottom: (in short) USA has never recognized Soviet occupation of Baltic States. And when these states finally declared their independence, USA was among the last countries to recognize that...

And all you write about spare time that is too insufficient for anything really worth is correct - people work too much to earn too much money that they'll never had chance to spend. Except maybe for medicine, and that wouldn't have to happen if more money was sent to health insurance funds; if they worked a bit less, more people could have been employed, more people would fill those funds, and less money would be spent on social care programs for unemployed.

[–] Mantas84 17 years ago

I grew up in a socialist country, albeit an extremely different one then the DDR and other Soviet controlled republics. Just watching this film I see how constricting these countries were and how they warped the idea of Socialism and Communism. Admitedly in Yugoslavia we didn't have anything close to Marx's idea, but I do think we had a system that worked best for our nation. We were open to western capitalism and ready to business with them, not all people were equaly since you made money depending on your job, freedom of religion was there, and we even had private business (even though they had to give a certain amount to the state to be spread around). But we believed in brotherhood and unity and that everyone deserved basic rghts such as free health care, guaranteed job, a place to live in etc. If people couldn't find a job in Yugoslavia they were given a working visa on behalf of the government that set them up with a job in western societies. It wasn't perfect but it was the great blend of socialist values and western freedom of individuality. But once the winds of change began to blow and former die hard communists decided to turn in their red stars for nationalistic symbols the country was no more. What is now in place of the country is sad, with 5 of the 6 new countries having a hard time adjusting to capitalism and only Slovenia making any progress. The streets are now riddled with crime and the goverment is full of corruption and almost all local business being sold off to western buyers. So yes this movie does make me extremely nostalgic for the past especially the beginning with all the symbols being shown. Again I do not know much about the way of life in DDR or any of the Comniterm republics but yes just the thought of socialism dying is a sad one.

"In fact I don't cry for communism at all. I cry because of what is it replaced by. Yes, people had rather good social and health security. They had also quite good employment chances and security of their working places. They usually didn't have to fear every morning if they'll be fired or they won't get paid at the end of month. But they had to fear each time someone knocked at the door, they had to fear if someone might identify them when going to church, or someone will hear them laugh at some political joke (no need to talk), or some relative won't return from abroad so whole family becomes suspect... I can't cry for that times and those regimes as well as I can't be happy seeing what it had all turned to. "

I'm not quiet sure if you are talking about Yugoslavia but if you are then you are quiet mistaken. There were no real fears for citizens that you mentioned, my mother and my father went to church every day of their lives with no secrecy and my father was still a member of the communist party. The sending off because of political joke only happened in the 50's and that was more akin to the "Red Scare" in America, you see at the time Yugoslavia was in a huge danger of being attacked by USSR and invasion was looming. The party and Tito overeacted and sent a lot of hard core communist who were suspected of being alligned to Stalin to Goli Otok a prison camp. During the 70's and 80's the restrictions on freedom of speech were minimum how else do you explain new wave bands winning states honors even though their criticising communism, or Kusturica's film "Otac Na Sluzbenom Putu" which criticised the above "Red Scare" winning almost all Yugo film awards and also making its director a star in the country. Clearly you don't know what you are talking about when you mention Yugoslavia....

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Sorry... I know what I am talking about. So far I didn't want to bother readers with details, but I'll feel free to show some examples if you changed the style of the discussion.

I don't know how old are you and how far back do you remember. But if your father was a member of Communist party, that would explain two things: there were definitely no equal chances in life for members and non-members, so those who were members themselves or at least their parents have been in the party couldn't feel what the rest were going through simply because they had more doors open; and second, most communists who were born after WWII believed that all the legends were true, and simply had no chance to hear another version.

I'll show several examples about free religion: when I was about 9 a teacher (of another nationality) asked in the classroom who among pupils goes to church. Luckily, I was already warned by my parents that might happen, so I didn't raise my hand. That saved me from hours of additional brainwashing, and my parents from troubles.

When a friend of mine got a new job in small town, he was told by his chief (who was of course a member of Party) that he won't mind if my friend was going to church, but only if he went so far that nobody could recognize him. Situation was a bit better in bigger towns because it was not so easy to perform a control.

It was impossible to get a job in schools if you were not in Party. Maybe some job could have been find in distant villages, but usually it was only a part-time job until a member appeared. A relative of mine, whose father was a partisan officer, couldn't get a permanent job in school because she wasn't in Party herself, and her nationality wasn't convenient to the deciding member of commission (who told it openly, but without witnesses).

Many children were not baptized, not to mention other sacraments, because people were afraid they'd lose their jobs (especially if in public services - and in those years most working places were under state control). My friend (from nationally mixed family) was baptized at age of 13, in another part of country. Many weddings in 80's were performed on the same day as baptizing, because either bride or groom or even both had no sacraments received till then.

Also, Christmas greeting cards were never sold in bookshops, posts or any other place except churches and (only in last years) on street fairs.

Among first rules that every new soldier had to learn was banning visits to any kind of religious place or ceremony.

And about free speech, you are also wrong. In first years of communist regime people didn't go to jail, they were sentenced to death. Later, however, Goli otok (after those first inhabitants dies, or those rare lucky ones gained freedom) was the destination for them.

Now, don't think I'm a kind of radical anti-communist. I have been participating in many activities led by Party, and I think many of them weren't sure if I was member or not, but they simply didn't care. Even in those days when Tito was dying, and special measures have been set up, I was among those who were in charge to keep peace and safety of objects. With a secret services that Yugoslavia had, they surely had good informations if I was a person they could trust or not. I took part in protests against American interventions in Vietnam and Chile, not because I had to (most of my friends avoided that, so it was my free will that I did it), in fact the only reason I wasn't in the party was the fact I was going to church.

Was there more freedom and security than beyond Iron Curtain? No discussion about it, we were free as swallows comparing to them (I've been there many times and can tell). But we shouldn't be too idealistic about Yugoslavia years either.

[–] Mantas84 17 years ago

Well there's not much I can disagree with there because its obvious me and you grew up with different backgrounds in Yugoslavia. I believe you about some of the stories about tougher life for non-party members and i see that you mention growing up in a rural small town area while I was born and raised in Split. I a;sp know the goverment was extremely cruel during the early years, you see my great uncle was a member of the Belegardists during WWII and his family was very much underprivilaged all during the 50's and majority of the 60's long after he was killed in a POW camp. I'm not going to deny the Stalinist methosed used by Tito in the early years they are unexcusable, but the fact is people stopped being liquidated during the early 50's and that was when a wrong comment could land you in the Goli Otok. There were no murders there but the camp was horrificaly designed to kill off a persons spirit. But then again already during the early 60's people stopped being shipped off there. And yes it did take a while for my dad to be able to join the party being religious and all but this was all on his own accord, I also knew a lot of people in Croatia that didn't want to join the party yet they were still able to recieve normal jobs and provide education for their kids. Again I do believe you that there were probably people who weren't able to achieve anything because they were religious, but I can only attest to what I expirienced and what I saw and just like that I can't disagree with much of what you say. But I must say one thing and this might be all just again purely my perspective but the state of Croatia during the 90's was much worse and much more restricting then any period of my life in Yugoslavia. During the 90's it flipped now if you werent a devout Catholic you weren't going to get very far and forget about being any other religion, any ties with Serbians and/or Muslims and you are pretty much *beep* or even minor things like reading Feral or rejecting the new and rewritten history. I know the first time in '99 when my old Serbian friend was allowed into Split he first had to go meet the secret police down on the Katalinic Brijeg and was questioned for 4 hours before being allowed out, the "meeting" wasn't even a schedueled one they just picked him up right as he entered Split. Yes things have cleaned up a bit after Tudjman's death and a lot of things such as war crimes are talked about now, but then again more people then ever have no jobs almost all firms are sold off to foreign companies and more and more politicians are caught with their hand in the cookie jar. If thats what "free Capitalism" brought us then count me in for the more controlling Big Brother any time.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

And I do agree with you in almost everything you say. We simply grew in a bit different surroundings and families, we have some different legacies, but more or less we look at world with similar reality glasses (though the colors may be slightly different).

I was born in Zagreb, and personally I (being careful not to protrude much) had no real troubles because of going to church. There were no controls, no police, maybe some agents in disguise (as we suspected sometimes) but even if so, nobody had consequences for being there. But once I grew to look for a job I had to leave Zagreb (having not enough good "qualifications"), and hey - I still have no chance to return, because people who took those places during Yugoslavia years still work there (and keep places for their children and nephews once they retire).

Also, some different data about Goli otok. (Have you ever visited it?) It was indeed something like concentration campus for Stalin followers in the first place; as they were mostly Serbs, it was maybe a kind of compensation for Bleiburg where Slovenians and Croats payed the highest price (interesting that, as much as I know, nobody tried to analyze connection between these national tragedies). I agree that there were no official killings, but the life conditions were so difficult that most of those people didn't survive. When most of them ended their captivity (one way or the other) jails were free for new guests; first they were people who were too incautious and said something among wrong people (so called verbal delict or verbal act, that wasn't abolished almost till the beginning of war). In early 70's Croats became majority (again certain equilibrium) after breakdown of Croatian movement for autonomy). Finally, only after all of them, the most serious criminals (killers, terrorists, rapists, robbers - especially if repeating crimes) were directed to Goli otok, and the jail wasn't closed in 60's as you wrote, but in late 80's (as much as I remember it was 1988).

Also, I'd like to emphasize that there was a difference between party members too. Many of them were real communists or socialists, and living according to their ideals and beliefs didn't ask for privileges. The same, differences existed among non-members too, I don't have to imagine the destiny of your great uncle because most of us know some similar cases.

It is hard to compare 90's and Yugoslavia years. It was war. Just look at the level of freedom and personal liberty in America today. Bush has declared they are in war against terrorists, and though, except few hours in one single day USA hasn't been attacked on their own territory, civil rights have been suspended and not only they haven't been reestablished, but they are even less then before. This can be compared to Yugoslavia which was always looking for some "inner and outer enemies". Situation in Croatia between 1990 and 1997 can be compared better to first post-WWII years in Yugoslavia, when there was a real danger of war, or 1948. when civil war between Tito's group and orthodox Stalinists was a real option. Tudjman died soon after the final end of the war (1997, when Eastern Slavonia problem was finally solved), so it's hard to say how would he lead country in years of peace. Our problem now is not that we might be prosecuted for saying something, it's just the opposite, people can talk whatever they want and nobody listens, nobody cares.

Today? We don't pay this high price for abandoning unsuccessful Yugoslavian socialism (all what we had was on paper legs, because our welfare was built on debts that sooner or later have to be paid back and the system would have collapsed anyway. We pay price for lack of vision, lack of ideas of those who were supposed to build this new country. We pay price for copying the sort of capitalism that was maybe adequate for someone else, who had different history, level of education, tradition, political system, economy etc. Most of all, we pay the price because nobody, and I mean nobody including politicians and voters, tycoons and working class, nobody understood that successful capitalist countries built and developed its capitalism through several centuries, and we expect to copy it in a year without any base and make it successful without any adjustments. Everyone expects just to live better and make a lot of money, without having in mind that generations of Americans, Norwegians, Germans and other rich nations had to work hard before their offspring could enjoy what they have now.

[–] dtechba 12 years ago

I do not see where the repressive nature of the Ossie government was ignored. Right out the gate you have the Stasi interrogating her about her husband. Then there are several scenes showing fairly brutal suppressions of dissent nd later the mother talks about how it had been for the family when her husband had refused to join the Communist Party. You can only do so much in 90 minutes. I lived in Germany for 12 years most of it prior to reunification and had inlaws living in the East. The movie did a pretty good job briefly describing what it was like for Ossies before, during and after reunification with the time it had....

[–] tegelane_5 17 years ago

I think that this whole idea of this movie that somebody want's to put up show that DDR continues is joke aswell. Nobody believed in that system!
This west VS east is continuing in Korea to this day. North Korean's are living your dream! This is it uncensored pure stuff without propaganda fascade, go there, enjoy.
You say this heavy industrialization was necassary in SU, to this day you can't drive from Moskow to Vladivastok with a car, only railroad. Russia and USA started building railroads about same time!
I recommend you to read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anna Politkovskaya's "Putin's Russia".
Come to think all those "great" countries DDR, North Korea etc need(ed) to have those massive borders with mines, automatic/robotic guns and so one. Or, you can't build utopia without borderguard with AK47!?

[–] gustaff90 17 years ago

to tegelane 5

My dear enthusiastic friend,

I am not sure about who you are addressing on this board, but your attempts to enlighten others wandering in the dark makes me smile. I can assure you that most people read more than just 2 books in their life.

You can drive from Vladivostok to at least the centre of Russia, my father did it, and many other citizens who buy use Japanese cars there cheaply and then drive home. And this distance is already much longer then all the way across your precious USA. As for the raildroads, what's wrong with them? They stretch over an awesome distance of about 7400 km - the longest in the world, and they are fully functioning, to the point of bursting at the seams.

Also in assessing the stage of development you seem to have conveniently forgotten about the difference in climate, the density and size of population etc. You should compare Russia with Canada then, and I again can assure that Canadians were envious of the miraculous progress made by Soviet aviators, seamen, builders, miners etc who have achieved so much during the early Soviet period (the Stalin era). Not to say about outstanding scientific results derived from observation bases on floating ice etc. For further information I suggest that you consult Western monographs, e.g. "The Soviet Arctic" by Pier Horensma, "Soviets in the Arctic" by Taracouzio, also books by Canadian scholars like Erick Franckx, Donat Pharand etc. Why I stress the progress in the Arctic so much? Because it comprises about 18% of the Russian territory. Because an emornous amount of economic and human resources were poured into it.

From the style of your writing I drew the conclusion that you are either a teenager brainwashed by the tabloids you read from time to time. Or,if much older, pathetic in terms of education and discussion skills.

READ MORE. GROW UP. Then, in some distant future, you will realize that social phenomena are not quite so black and white as you appear to perceive them. You might even start actually THINKING, PONDERING over things instead of firing meaningless sentences at random.

With the best wishes,

Gustaff

[–] tegelane_5 17 years ago

Back to you gustaff90, yes soviets did have some success in some field. Specially space exploration etc. I admit, but what about those people who were deported to siberia in Stalins time. There might be canadians who are amazed what was done in 30 - 50 im just saing the cost in human lives was too high. I
I brought in stalinistic country - North Korea -so it's possible to compare it to another country - South Korea. They started in 50's basically from same starting point- can you really compare those countries now?
And gustaff let's leave out accusation of others being brain washed, I don't consider it part of intelligent discussion.

[–] novoid13 17 years ago

I've just seen the movie and it made me cry, though I'm usually trying to hide my emotions. I'm glad that it had affected somebody quite the same way. gustaff90 has pointed a question: "WHAT EXACTLY WAS ABOUT THIS MOVIE MAKING YOU CRY?" and i guess that the reason is it's being unexpectedly pure. I have lived in USSR for a very short amount of time, so I just have some glimpses of it, there really is something very familiar for me in this movie(espesially something like the opening titles).

There was also a question about "OMON RA", here's what i think about it: the novel has a few moments where something common appeared. for example, maybe you remember, when the guy is recalling things from his childhood: riding a bicycle with a broken handle bar,or the cosmonaut pioneer camp.But "OMON RA" is definitely very violent, and there's not anything like a dream or faith, everything is rusty.So the book kind of ruined me/ the movie was different it has built something good in my mind.

[–] gustaff90 16 years ago

was very happy to find another soul who read the book, "Omon Ra", which left such an indelible impression on my mind when I read it at the age of 19... but was it really so violent in the sense that no room was left for a dream or faith? I got the opposite impression - as of the most cynical characters of this novel put it, the whole world - communist, or socialist if you like - was built and then rested for decades on the zeal of young idealists like those cosmonauts who had burned during the taking off of the space rocket... That's what I'm missing in the new Russia's culture - everything hinges on the commercial success, and there's not much room left for dreams and poetry... and then you start feeling nauseated, like Sartre's character, and your existence appears to you so meaningless, and you want to do something crazy

turning back to the subject of "Omon Ra", the author's dedication of the book to Soviet cosmonauts was by no means accidental... many of them sacrificed their lives for no-one knows what, like Komarov who burnt in outer space because of the deficiencies in the construction of the ship... because of the Soviet leaders' obsession with the space race...

[–] bdglover 16 years ago

Getting all the way back to gustaff's original question (below)...

I'm 32 and from the USA; the closest I came to the former East was six months in Hungary in 1996. While I look back at my youthful ideas with a bit of shame now, at the time Central Europe was a kind of new frontier for relatively rich young Americans like me who wanted to experience something different (but not truly different or threatening, like, say, a country with real poverty like India). We thought it was super-cool to smoke Munkás ("Worker") cigarettes while throwing dollars around in ways that were sure to annoy the locals. So for me the old East still represents youthful promise, setting out far from home at age 21, etc. We were Robinson Crusoe; I'm sorry we tried to make you into Friday. So "Good Bye Lenin" reminded me of where I thought (wrongly) I was going when I finished university.

More importantly, though, it seems like even for people who never left the USA, the old DDR represents a world that we lost, too, since the Internet gave us all access to everything -- a process that began not long after 1989. The feeling I get from "Good Bye Lenin" is pretty similar to the one I get from "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "The Life Aquatic." [Incidentally, I'd like to know what you post-Soviet types think of _those_ movies.] You had your Spreewald pickles, we had our avocado-green rotary desk phones, but that whole world of limited choices is gone. Now you can get whatever pickles or phone you like, whenever you want one. I've never gone thrift-store shopping in the former DDR, but I'm kind of addicted to it in the USA for somewhat similar reasons to the ones that have been posted here -- old LPs and clothes are emotionally valuable because, even in the US, they represent a time when you couldn't get whatever you wanted, instantly, and often for free. Of course, it's only the fact that no one else wants them anymore that allows me to buy so many of them these days. I'm sure there's a thriving trade in DDR pop-cultural relics on eBay now, but it's hard to avoid the basic contradiction there...

And finally, I think everyone, no matter when or where they grew up, can relate to the feeling that the world of childhood (whatever it looked like to the adults at the time) held a feeling that you just can't get back. Ultimately I think that's why this film did so well outside of Germany.

Peace.

>I just wonder if only the ex-USSR citizens like me (mind me, I'm only 25 now, >though!) feel immesurable sadness while watching this movie. I could never quite perceive it as a comedy. I cry every time when I see its opening titles (especially the boy's T-shirt bearing the Soviet cosmonaut-related mark and stamps featuring the DDR first austronaut), which is so puzzling, 'cause I'm by no means in favour of the old system, am studying abroad at the present, and, so to say, benefit in every way from the collapse of the old system. Maybe, it's just because it looks like my childhood depicted so lovingly on the screen?

I would appreciate so much if you, my unknown friends, would share your own recollections and feelings evoked by this beautiful movie. Apart from the excellent depiction of a son's love for mother, WHAT EXACTLY WAS ABOUT THIS MOVIE MAKING YOU CRY WHILE WATCHING THE ALMOST SURREAL, SHABBY AND HIGHLY RESTRICTED SOCIALIST WORLD WHICH WAS DOOMED TO FALL DOWN ANYWAY?

[–] tegelane_5 16 years ago

To bdglover,
I think You should'nt be to ashamed of smoking those Munkas. Yuppie in USA can smoke Lucky Strike,can't he, he doesn`t have to smoke Marb Light all the time;) Probably those hungarians thought "Cone googoo from good life, if I coul´d I would smoke Marb Red all the time?!"
And if You have trouble choosing in store etc, in Soviet time You definetly wouldn't had that trouble. If You saw a que (outside of store ofcourse)step in and ask what was on sale. Basically all in smaller towns (Not Moskau and Saint Petersbourg though)TVs fridges(better food) etc was bought so. Deficit is the word that rang a bell a big time to any SU citizen. Allthough in DDR this shortage problem wasn't so high as in closer regions to Moskau.But it was supposed to be explary state to which other Soviet sattelites and the world would have to look up to. Hence the notorious DDR olympics programs etc.
American remake for this movie could be: Some divorced woman working for republicans(thinks Nixon is great president, believes blindly party propaganda) in 70 ties has a stroke right before Watergate affair. Hence the son has to rent high tech video equipment, make newspapers etc. Hollywood ofcource would mock? it up in the end"It's better to know the trouth than believe a beutiful lie" or some other concrete happy end will close it. Thats a way I could explain it to people who haven't lived in SU.

[–] senkisem 16 years ago

"WHAT EXACTLY WAS ABOUT THIS MOVIE MAKING YOU CRY WHILE WATCHING THE ALMOST SURREAL, SHABBY AND HIGHLY RESTRICTED SOCIALIST WORLD WHICH WAS DOOMED TO FALL DOWN ANYWAY?"

Nonsense. Besides, there mayt be times coming when your dollars will be worth nothing (it does not worth much even now anyway) - what will you do then? Or what 40 million of your fellow citizens do without e.g., health insurance? In your system, no one cares of you, if you are poor - and if you are out of your dollars {with which you were annoying decent Hungarians back then}, you will be in trouble. (I suppose you have heard of the Great Depression.)

[–] tegelane_5 16 years ago

Senkisem are you trying to say that poor North Koreans, or even poor chinese are living better than poor americans? Enjoying better medical? And when great depression was happening You cold read it from the papers whats going one not some bent facts. Not that I'm saing that US medical system is good, it isnt. But medical for everybody is doable WITHOUT communism.

[–] imnotokay_ipromise 16 years ago

I think it stands to be said that the majority of Americans growing up under the "Communism is an evil monster that devoured innocent people in Russia, Germany, China, and Cuba and will devour you too if you are not a good, democratic patriot" ideaology will never understand that to people who lived under the opposite - embracing socialism/communism and fearing the evil capitalist monster, the DDR and the CCCP and all of those things that American schoolbooks still strive to paint as hideous failures. Yes, many people were unhappy with the gouvernment, but many people were equally devoted to the ideals that it presented.

These people lived in a world where they had a job, and health care, and a school to send their children to, and college after that. They had equality, or a semblance of it that was far greater than in capitalist countries. There were summer camps for the Pioneers, and rather than celebritising people who may or may not actually deserve it, the fame and recognition for their hard work went to every day people - writers, farm workers, factory workers, shop clerks, and artists.

On the other side there was a gouvernment that arrested you for protesting freedom of speech and "the right to take a walk without the wall getting in the way" (not that the USA is any better, especially not in the 60's and 70's).

Look at the every day life presented by the film - it has as many gives and takes as any capitalist society. There are still children and families, happy, laughing, taking photos and video and visiting their cabin and going to summer Pioneer camp and singing. There are friends helping friends and neighours helping neighbours, and celebrations and parties. To say that East Germans and Russians under the Soviet system lived in complete desparation is an insult to them and the way of life they once had. Because someone else does not have as many iPods and television sets and gold credit cards as you do does not in any circumstance translate into them living a life of any less quality. No system is perfect, and no person on this Earth is truly "free", no matter how many newspapers and satires and television broadcasts they want to put out to disprove that.

Socialism was never perfect, but neither was capitalism. Both work in their own ways and both fail in their own ways, and both will forever be trying to discredit one another. As one East German noted after the fall of the wall, East Germany's "standard of living" was rising, but the sense of comraderie, the feeling of being a community and looking out for one another seemed to vanish; after the wall came down, it was every man for himself. That is the difference between socialism and capitalism.

So, please, before anyone embarasses him or herself trying to discredit either system, consider that everything you have heard about each - from both sides - is an entirely biased point of view. Neither will ever be any better than the other, and that is why they will never get along.

Also, for the record, true Marxism calls for a nonviolent rise to communism through the common man realising that capitalism is getting him nowhere and making the change. The revolution that Lenin led was not true Marxism, because of it's high death toll, and therefore Lenin Marxism and Marxism are very different entities, so when discrediting Lenin's version of communism, it ought to be noted, to avoid confusion.

[–] otdushy 16 years ago

in reference to the question originally asked, what made me cry was:
· the loss of youthful optimism
· all the broken dreams

My thinking: when you are a child, you think everything is great in the world and you have such high hopes for yourself and you are so proud of your country.

But then you get older and discover all the ugliness - the lies, broken promises, propaganda. You are disgusted with yourself for believing it all, and repulsed by what you used to love: feeling of superiority, sportspeople, astronauts and the country. Life is one big joke.

Capitalism is better, but not great either. Now you have grandmas begging in the streets while young millionaires shamelessly waste money like it is a competition. What is upsetting is that nobody really cares about other people. This may have been the case during communist times too, but at least it was not so blatantly obvious. This is what I think Ostalgie is created by. Memories tend to recollect all the good things about the time (while minimising the negative), and it’s a desire to return to when things appeared simpler.

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 12 years ago

I salute you, imnotokay_ipromise!! You have said it so remarkably well! I couldn't have done it better. Cheers :-)

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 12 years ago

"WHAT EXACTLY WAS ABOUT THIS MOVIE MAKING YOU CRY WHILE WATCHING THE ALMOST SURREAL, SHABBY AND HIGHLY RESTRICTED SOCIALIST WORLD WHICH WAS DOOMED TO FALL DOWN ANYWAY?"

Oh my...Another arrogant and ignorant statement.

I am not sure who is being quoted as I have just copied it off the previous poster, who has also quoted it from someone else.

I always laugh when I hear so-called "westerners" roll their eyes or sigh sympathetically and ask you how you could possibly survive in that "repressive and surreal system"?

First of all, I want to say that I DID feel extremely emotional watching this movie. I think I could relate greatly to what was being shown in the film, the main character's thoughts and feelings etc. Although I am not from East Germany. In fact, I've not even been to Germany yet!

I was born and grew up in the USSR. And I have to make it very clear to all of you out there that I had a most HAPPY, fulfilling childhood and adolescence! I never for a moment felt that I was living in a repressed society, or that it was "dangerous to walk in the streets, because they could just come up to you take you away". When I was growing up people didn't just "disappear". I knew of no one, not one person among my immediate circle of relatives, friends, school friends and their parents, who "disappeared". One may think this way of the 30s-40s USSR but NOT in the later years. My great-grandparents generation had experienced this, but not my grandparents or my parents.
I'd appreciate it if some of the western people would at least care to meet and talk to some of us who actually lived in this, instead of reading worthless books, and before coming up with their skewed conclusions.

Yes, there is a lot to miss, because after all there were a lot of good things, at least for an average citizen. The dissident minority might be the one that got themselves into trouble, but most people weren't dissidents. They were just common citizens, living normal, often simple, lives.
I didn't have the sophisticated toys that most kids have today, however the ones I had I remember with fondness and they were my favourite ones. I agree with the OP: people were able to appreciate simple things. Simple, sometimes austere, pleasures.
Now that I am living overseas and that I have seen "the other side", I really cannot understand how the capitalist system is so much better. It's got its own limitations, its own control machine. It's less explicit than it used to be in the USSR but it's there nevertheless! Anyone who thinks they are genuinely "free" in this system is either an idiot or a simpleton.

So although I don't know what it might be like for me living in the USSR in my mature years, I'd still go and say being a child in that system was one of the best thing one might have. I'd have loved for my children to have grown up then: it was a much safer kinder environment, than it is now. You didn't have to worry about what your child was watching on TV or when they went out to play with friends. There were tons of marvellous children's books, movies, cartoons, most of them of superior quality. Nowadays, a lot of old books are republished and reprinted as, sadly, there isn't much new material produced in those quarters.

[–] isbabo 16 years ago

well I'll try and put my spin on this film.

First off I'm 26 and Canadian. The closest I've ever come to being in a communist country is Hong Kong post-handover so I won't try and pretend I know a whole lot about life in East Germany or a communist state.

I thought this film did a great job of showing both the pro's and con's of life in the eastern bloc. I didn't think the oppressive nature of the state was in any way hidden, but I think there was a more human face put to it. For example, in teh beginning there are riot police called in to put down a peaceful protest using excessive force, however they later release Alex when his mother is discovered to be in the hospital.

I think for me it also showed how much the former east and west bloc's had in common. For example when the children are singing patriotic songs for Alex's mother and she is so happy. First off she seems happy because she taught the children to sing, not that they were singing odes to socialism. Second, people in the west are just as bad. Why do we need national anthems before sporting events, especially in a domestic contest such as a hockey or baseball game? Or in America when "God Bless America" is sung during the 7th inning stretch of a baseball game, is that really necessary? The major difference as I see it is that I can point out how ridiculous it is for me to sing "O Canada" before a hockey game without having the RCMP showing up at 3 am to take me to some secret jail.

Finally, and this is not really related to the film but I think it spawns from the east/west question posed. If people in the west think that we are not locked in to a single ideology we are crazy. We have subscribed wholeheartedly to a libertarian/capitalist ideology. Now I'm not going to attack that system, but I will point out that few western democracies have socialist, fascist or other such parties. Most are two party systems with perhaps a 3rd party that gets fringe votes. In Canada we have a conservative party and a moderate/conservative party with a fringe social democrat party and a fringe Quebecois party. In America it's 2 conservative parties. In Britain it's a conservative and a moderate party with a 2nd moderate party to choose. In Australia it's a conservative and a moderate party with several other social democrat to conservative fringe parties. No one advocates anything but capitalism, it's just how much capitalism and how much the state is involved in capitalism. Combine that with record low voter turnout across the western world and you start to wonder how much different we are in some respects (and I emphasise some, the fact that I can post this shows just how different this system is, and why I ultimately will choose it, even with its many flaws).

"you're paid to think Mr. Scientist. National Security is our business"

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

Quite a long post (guilty for many even longer ones, I admit!) needs more than one short reply.

they later release Alex when his mother is discovered to be in the hospital

If they didn't find out that she was an important member of Party he wouldn't be even let go to the funeral if she had died. Also, the other members of the family would be in jeopardy of losing job and gaining serious consequences if one of the family members was identified as participant in riots. However, the second sentence is more related to earlier decades of socialism.

First off she seems happy because she taught the children to sing, not that they were singing odes to socialism.

I agree, but in most Party members these feelings were very mixed.

Why do we need national anthems before sporting events

Many people like you, living in old, free countries don't realize any more the importance and symbolism of an anthem. I'll try to give you an example, but as I am not so familiar with Canada I'm not sure if this will sound reasonable. If Quebec people of French origin had an anthem (and I don't know if they do), and if English origin government denied their right to use it, and let it be sung just in rare occasion but then control who looks satisfied to hear it, and even sings along with the official choir... what do you think how would Quebec people feel about the anthem if they ever gained independence? Some nations have recently, after split of unnatural multinational countries, got the chance to listen and sing their anthems without any dangers after many decades or even first time ever.

I'm not going to attack that system

This is your right not to do. but why not? One system is being replaced by another equally wrong - doesn't it provoke some feelings?

Combine that with record low voter turnout across the western world

Yes, very similar, but at least nobody's going to knock on your door next morning when the elections are over and ask you why haven't you been there to vote for the only candidate offered.

the fact that I can post this shows just how different this system is

Don't be too sure. Almost all sites keep IP, and there are so many other ways to control internet post, so you never know when will someone collect all your thoughts and knock on your door. Communists did their best to control everything, but didn't have technical possibilities to do it. Today your civilization and your system can do it and does it more than anybody ever in human history. Police control in socialism made life uncomfortable, but modern mutual technical and mind control makes life miserable, depressive and finally worthless.

[–] powerstill 16 years ago

This is an incrediable movie. I saw it on TV again yesterday. Some friends words on this thread are very warm-hearted and some are very open minded. I am born in Shanghai, China. I still remember we are instructed to serve our people, to utilize scientific developing view to modernize our homeland when I was in the school. At that time, we do help strangers and the happiness is the return. Everyone is equally paid and equally poor according to American standard.

After we embrace capitalism, our country has changed dramastically in the last 20 years. As we enjoy the mordern technolgies, free market, western food (I nearly vomit when I first taste potato mesh in the KFC :) ) something else is missing as well. People are just busy making money, buying this buying that. A small lake in front my parent house is now extremely dark and stink, the open place I used to play around are replaced by high rising buildings.

It's pretty funny to see an American guy here, want to go to Indian to experience poor life. This reminds me of a Chinese movie called "Jiafang yifang (1997)", a company established in Beijing trying to help people's dream, one of the dreams is like his. I am not sure whether ostalgie or socialism is better. But I believe communication would bring a better mutual understanding and a better world.

[–] tegelane_5 16 years ago

In my country, formerly part of Soviet Union the pollution has gone down quite a lot. No longer harbours so oily, wells with burning "water"-those were close proximity of Soviet Military forces which simply pumped fuel they did'nt need in to the ground. Ofcource with todays oilprices its unthinkable but back then that happened. Industrialization in Soviet Union went with little regard of pollution or human life.

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

This has always been a destiny of smaller countries, occupied, colonized or at least submitted to a stronger power. Just remember where did big forces test their weapons (especially nuclear), or what happened with dangerous garbage.

Today ecology became one of most popular battlefields, and developed, rich countries whose citizens can afford to raise their voice (because their existence isn't endangered by hunger, loss of job, dictator government etc) often manage to
avoid new pollution of their environment.

So why do you think European union spreads? Why are those rich, developed countries eager to accept those distant, poor parts of the continent? Because of altruism? You believe it? Give me a break...

[–] tegelane_5 16 years ago

In polluting all Soviet Union was equal, in Europian side I suppose things were even worse in Russias part.
Neither did Soviet Union spread because of altruism. It just created puppet governments in all countries from where they pushed Third Reich out.
Its not possible to compare how much more freedom has every governement within EU to the puppets Soviet Bloc countries used to have.

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

Certainly it is not possible to compare. Not only Soviet states, but their "friends" behind Iron Curtain had to deal with Soviet Army. So, there were local governments who were under local Communist party, all of them submitted to Soviet Party, and just in case all of that failed, there was Army as a final solution.

This is something that can, I believe, never happen in European community.

However, Europe has different methods. First there has to be enough poverty in new member, so that people won't be willing to object or even have time and strength to think about their future at all, because their today gives them enough troubles to think about. Some of them will also be seduced by promises of good life that people in EU share (similar to fairy tales offered to East Europe people when communism was falling apart). Then long and exhausting negotiations between the country and EU start, and as long as they last the country becomes even more poor. And most of its thin welfare is spent to satisfy the rules of EU and standards that country has to implement before EU finally mercifully accepts the country in their community. Once it finally happens there are no groups, individuals, forces that could resist accepting everything that EU doesn't need any more, from toxic garbage that will be put down in some old mine or abandoned field (for a promised loan), or food and drugs that have their use expired in EU states (but new countries can re-pack and hide the date, because though the laws must have been adjusted, there are no controls) etc. And countries' poverty, as well as poverty of their citizens, play the role that Soviet Army did in USSR: as long as it is there, nobody will object...

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

I´m sorry, but you´re talking completely out of yer ass here... First off, countries being (relatively) poor is not due to some EU´s "methods". Secondly, you seem to imply that EU somehow has to trick the new countries into joining the organization, as if it was something bad or whatever... And yes, eastern Europe WAS "seduced" into joining EU by promise of better life (I hope you´re not going to argue that in terms of living standard western Europe was not better off than the former "socialist" countries because that´s pure nonsense). Free world didn´t need to make any effort to advertise its virtues since you have to be blind not to recognise them yerself. West ways very obviously was best ways.

As for yer statement that during the negotiations, the countries involved in it got progressively poorer - that is a completely ridiculous (let alone ungrounded) claim as progress on many levels was the exact condition for joining EU in the first place). What do you think the negotionations were about then?

Yer ramblings about toxic waste, outdated drugs and so forth are so incredibly absurd that all I can say is PLEASE read up and gather some information before humiliating yerself in the public domain. And what exactly do you mean by the statement that "because of its countries poverty, Soviet Army did in USSR"? Are you suggesting that Soviet Army was behind the breaking apart of SU? Well, I guess at least it´s imaginative.

In one of yer previous posts you also asked a question "where do you think big countries tested their nucear weapons?", apparently thinking they do so on the territories of small occupied countries... which is of course also bs as SU tested their weapons where they saw fit, where there were best conditions for that - mainly in deserts, tundras and other sparsely populated plain lands found in Central Asia, some of it on Russian territory, some elsewhere (Kazakhstan being one such area often used). Only because of the authoritarian style of running the country don´t mean they were out to annihilate their citizens (after Stalin´s death anyway) and however nasty the occupation might have been for the smaller republics, at least they were considered more or less equal members of the empire and were not used as the countries´ junkyard. Get a grip.

And the new members were accepted as EU members because they ARE European countries after all and that´s the logical place to be... and fortunately EU is not that hypocritical about these issues. Although the new members are poor compared to westerners, we´re definitely not talking about some third world states constantly struggling with civil wars, famines and dictatorship. Out of the former SU countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are among the top 50 richest countries in the world according to GDP per capita (as of 2007). Same with Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Croatia. So yes, the new members are significantly poorer compared to Germany or France, but the big picture isn´t that bad at all.

So next time - pretty please, with sugar on top, get yer head straight and actually study the issues before opening the mouth. Mkay?

[–] przgzr 15 years ago

The more years pass by, the less am I sure that the living standard is getting better in countries that have joined EU. If you consider "standard" as opportunities to buy things, then yes, there are things in shops that could never have been imagined before. But these expensive things replaced cheap - maybe less famous and a bit weaker quality, but available to most people. Today most people can watch what some people can afford, but they personally can buy less than before, because there are no goods adequate to their salaries. But if you include schools or health care in "living standard", new situation is a lot worse than it was before.

Now, while my speaking about seduction and cheating might be just subjective feelings and observations, outdated drugs, food etc are things that have happened and some have become small scandals - small, because pro-EU governments did their best to ignore or hide the facts. Some things couldn't have been hidden forever though.

When you name certain part of Earth "free world", what does it mean? Do you try to say that being American satellite makes country free unlike being Soviet satellite? "West ways very obviously was best ways." Maybe, for people who have been born there and had their roots there. And, if possible, some fortune.

If you are so well informed, and you've checked everything (or maybe didn't have to because you know everything better), can you tell me since when has Croatia been in EU?

[–] imnotokay_ipromise 15 years ago

The problem with GDP per capita is that while a country might host a few million or billionaires, the majority of the country could be living on a dollar a day or less. The average amount of money within the country divided by the people who live there is not an accurate representation of the actual spread of wealth within that country.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tegelane_5 15 years ago

prawnkoktail you can take that other way around - Your have seen just glimpses of DDResq reality. You take Your fears to extremes, police state etc, state know where you were at all times. All that covered with propaganda, "proper news" etc. You find that appalling but Your kids who would have been raised in that environment might adapt to those conditions and find them normal.

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 12 years ago

tegelane_5, is this what it was like in the DDR?? Even in the 70s-80s?!
Gracious, they must have been years behind the USSR then.:-P

What you have outlined above sounds to me exactly as the 1930s Soviet Union.

[–] dtechba 11 years ago

Actually, as bad as they were the DDR was one of the most successful communist countries. Russie was way worse.

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 10 years ago

I take it you had the chance to compare both, personally? :P

Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual.

[–] dtechba 10 years ago

Visited the DDR many times and had Ossie in laws. Never visited Russia but you didn't have to visit to be able to read literature on the topic. There was ample literature concerning the economic status of 2nd world countries. If you don't know the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries you probably shouldn't be debating on here.

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 10 years ago

I beg your pardon, I know the difference very well and I have also lived in these countries.
As for "literature", tell me about that! Who was (still is) writing that literature?

I can see enough nonsense about my country coming from so called "trusted sources" nowadays, so you won't change my opinion on that.

Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual.

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 12 years ago

prawnkoktail, surprisingly I can relate to your feeling about the UK as I lived there for a while and actually saw a great change of things between when I first arrived (1999) there and when I last visited (2010).
I was indeed one of those foreigners that you say keep asking you: 'what are you doing to your country?' The answer to this, again, as you have outlined yourself, is apathy, sometimes fear to even attempt to undertake anything to preserve what was good about this country. It's really sad to witness and it gets even sadder when you hear people admitting how unhappy they are about the 'status quo' on a radio call-in, because it offers them relative anonymity. They say they wouldn't dare speak about it among their colleagues or even friends. More and more topics are becoming taboo!

What, oh what happened? :-(

[–] tomba-netropolis 15 years ago

Yes I cried too at the end. Good movie.
Why? Well because of the failure of a wonderful dream that didn't work
and the sadness of people trapped in an unfair system.

I was in East Berlin 1981 and it was no joyous city, neither was West Berlin.
The Cold War stamped a deep neurosis on both parts of the City and people suffered.
It's gone now, thankfully. I've been there many times since 1989.

With the experience of my travels I think I miss more the pre-1989 of Budapest.
A world of socialist consumer goods and red banners has disappeared.
And it was the happy place of the Warzaw Pact.... and it isn't happy now.
Just check out the results of the EU elections.

The westernisation brought a lot of bad things to people who weren't strong
enough to keep their own personality alive when the superficious advertising
fastfood world came crashing into their lives.

.

[–] vikulya78-103-135099 12 years ago

Another great insight. Thanks, mate!

[–] dtechba 10 years ago

An ex brother in law (Wessie)lived in West Berlin for awhile and liked it. He left because of the isolation and for career reasons rather than for any distaste for West Berlin. From what I can tell many are now disillusioned with the gentrification of West Berlin so I don't really think everyone thinks today is better.

[–] emmahardy-07954 8 years ago

I think you're completely right, that this film isn't a comedy. Though it has some comedic elements, the movie is very sad and somber.

The director was possibly trying to create "Ostalgie" in this film, but I think the director, like Alex, believed in a better version of the DDR than what was present. The director envisioned that the DDR would take in refugees, like the DDR that Alex created for his mother.

I think the most depressing aspect of this film is watching Alex's life spiral into disarray. Throughout the film, he meets his father but does not rekindle a relationship, Ariane and Rainer decide to move out, and obviously, his mother passes away. Though Alex tries so hard to create a perfect world within his family, everything falls apart, and he is helpless. Just like the socialist state of the German DDR, Alex's family was also doomed to fall apart.