Talk:Nostalgia for the Soviet Union

Article issues

Soviet nostalgia is a real phenomenon, though this article fails to summarize it neutrally. Instead, what we have is a coatrack which cobbles together various sources and links in an attempt to paint Putin as a neo-Stalinist. If the article is to be kept it needs a major gutting and significant revision. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This article is in need of revision. Although, I think there should still be coverage about how this fits into the current political climate in Russia, which is largely characterized by increased nationalist fervor, as well as the conflict in Ukraine. They're should also be more talk about neo-Soviet political movements, be they communist, nationalist, or (like the National Bolsheviks) a combination of the two. Charles Essie (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Psychonaut, I do not think you realize the scale of how big is the movement to revive the Stalin's personality cult. There is also a movement to revive the Soviet Union with websites registered .su talking about greatness of the country. The article is not about Putin, but he is an important official who talks about the revival of the Soviet Union. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If the article is not about Putin, then you have certainly fooled me (and Charles Essie, it seems). My tagging of this article was not to dispute the existence or scale of Soviet nostalgia, or Putin's involvement in it. Rather I am pointing out the less than neutral way that you have framed things. For instance, your version of the article mentioned Putin and neo-Stalinism in the same breath, implying a strong association between the two, when in fact Putin has made a number of comments clearly dismissive of Stalin. Stalin was not the only leader of the USSR, and it is possible to feel nostalgia for the USSR without endorsing Stalin. (In fact, polls show that most people nostalgic for the USSR actually pine for the Brezhnev era.)

Your overall pattern of editing suggests that you're unable to contribute neutrally on topics related to Russia and states of the former USSR. Perhaps you would consider restricting yourself to a different set of topics? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The recent reversal in the lede

My reverted edit actually corrected the wording for the one in the official statement ("the biggest disaster", apparently a make-up in some of the Western media -> "a major disaster", the real formulation), so at least in that regard it ought to be kept. Also, my edit summarised the rest of his speech, in which he made quite clear to which disaster he referred. (That was not just one phrase in emptiness, Putin discussed for some time what he referred to). One does not need to add any new resources for this summary, because this summary is a simple textual operation over the text of that speech, the link to which is given from inside the paragraph. If this textual operation is not apt and ought not to result in some text in the article, then the suggested summary “Putin referred to the idea that the Soviet Union had to be kept intact” is not apt either, because the means to arrive at this conclusion are even less reliable: “a disaster” does not mean and does not need to mean “an unnecessary disaster, that had to be avoided by keeping the country intact and in the state in which it was before 1991”, as those interpreters somehow took it to mean. Putin made no clear remark on that idea, whether he supported it or he did not, so it's safe to treat it as non-said, which it was, and summarise those references that were really said, which I did. If that suggested interpretation is what is endorsed by many media in the West, then please keep in mind, that those people have no better means to validate their views than we have, they cannot be superior authorities in this textual question, no more so than any of you are and no more than I am. As a maximum, that interpretation ought to be explicitly marked as their opinion. So, I request you to revert that revert, or at least to revert it and then rewrite my contribution in a way you see more fit. My contribution is certainly not a drop-down.

Also, please keep in mind (just in case), then if someone does not exactly share the pictures of Putin that seem to be common in the West, that does not mean that that person ought to be labelled a Putin fan or something, as it is commonly done for some unclear reason. And also, as the latest remark, I wish to note that commonality does not make neutrality: for example, in a given country, there may be however many people asserting that the God exists and Muhammad is his messenger, but that does not make this sentence neutral, because no-one is an authority in this question. We simply have no means to “know” whether “the God exists”. The simple questions of textual interpretation, on the contrary, are absolutely mundane, and in them, again to the contrary, every-one is an expert in some degree. I invite you to check my reasoning in the first paragraph of this edit. On the very least, “the biggest disaster” ought to be changed for “a major disaster”, as I made it to be. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: you ought to understand that my edit comment was a half-joke, and act accordingly. Emoticons are not put into the text “just because”, they, and all the text, are probably meant to invoke some thought, rather than reflexes. Pay attention to substance. ;) On the substance of this case I wrote above. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from your WP:WALLOFTEXT response to my reversion of this refactoring of content based on your own assessment as to the reliability of the BBC, what is being used in context is a direct quote from an RS. That means that neither you nor I have the luxury of tampering with the quote. Bear in mind that it isn't down to me to rewrite content you don't agree with. You should also refrain from structuring comments in a manner that implies that, should I not rewrite it, I must certainly be counted as falling into the ranks of the ignorant. I am assuming good faith on your behalf; you need to assume the same of me (and other editors). Note, also, that this is a talk page, not a soapbox. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You have only one point partly right. My edit was not based on reliability of BBC, please re-read the above. If my answer is a wall of text, then your rebuttal is even more so, as it has only one partly valid point, and it's not tangential to the problem, as it concerns language I used in my original answer — this text is not an answer, it is a copy of your rebuttal. (Though I must say that it looks weird when you ask me for civility). There are many manners in which I can write in Russian and just one manner in which I can write in English, you cannot change that. If you like, we could discuss the points in Russian on your talk page. In any case, there is no way to go along very far without a discussion of what is an “original research” and what is not, in application to this article. I think that the version you restored contains “original research”. Please keep in mind that I don't care whether you're “ignorant” or not, so please don't assign me intentions I did not have, assigning intentions to people is not a good way to go. Please keep in mind, as I do, that there is life beyond Wikipedia. In the end, I might ask you to refrain from soapboxing. It is never wrong to ask. Thank you for your understanding.

In the end, the “original quote” is what I edited the text to. Restore the original text of the quote was what I actually did. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the sentences in question (I begin to think it's useful):

I would like to bring those who think this way back to reality, to the facts. To do so, I will recall once more Russia’s most recent history.

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups – possessing absolute control over information channels – served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.

Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.

Firstly, “a major”, as I corrected, and not “the biggest”, as the incorrect version goes. Honestly, I thought I would look for the original text by yourselves. Secondly, note the place of the text where Putin expands on his words. He did not say “let us revive the Soviet Union, its demolition was a failure”, as the version of the article you restored suggested. Kinds of BBC, Ria Novosti and other stuff are ultimate reliable sources over news and facts, because this is their job, but not over textual interpretations, because understanding language is a natural human ability. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, you've merely eradicated the use of a simplistic "quote" that was used as a substitute for fuller analysis found in, and confirmed by, multiple reliable sources. Consequently, I understand your changes to be an improvement on the previous content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand you. Maybe the problem is I don't understand English well. There is just one thing to affirm beyond any further discussion by using sources: existence of the speech. Any kind of analysis, if what we further report is “analysis” and not a simple textual operation over the existent speech, is going to be attributed in the text: X thinks that Y. By the way, do you oppose the part “referred to the economic and social disasters that accompanied the process”, or you believe that that's not a conclusion we may make? The problem with the latter point of view is that the placement of the statement, as it is now, evokes, too, another conclusion on what he referred to (basically, “let us revive the Soviet Union”, or “let us be angry we can't revive the Soviet Union”), which has an even lower status than the first conclusion, as it is a result of an operation that is more complex. Basically, it assumes the word “disaster” to have an additional meaning inside the statement, as I explained above. A guess is a more complex operation than mere summary, is not it?

Maybe the main problem with this text is that it is written into the lede and therefore evokes improper associations. Yes, I know that journalists in the likes of BBC don't think these associations are improper, but I repeat: this kind of textual analysis, if somehow reported in the article (now it is, although implicitly), should be reported with explicit attributions, because those guys know no more about Putin's internal mind machine than we do; their domain of authority is only reporting facts, although even on the facts and news those reliable sources often disagree. Otherwise, the text should be phrased so that it does not make such associations, maybe moved from the lede. So, as a summary of my comment, first: let us decide what is a report of an analysis and what is a report of facts; second: let us decide what to do with the result of the decision in the first step. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, Evgeniy E.! All I was saying is that I agree that your content change was for the better. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, the locals have refused cooperation in resolving the problem of this wrong connotation. (Catastrophe to have happened != problem to be solved). OK, that says much, don't know what exactly. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Neo-Sovietism & Nostalgia for the Soviet Union

The two pages are relatively related, if not completely the same thing. I feel both pages should be merged as both share an overall similar subject regarding Soviet nostalgia. If not, Neo-Sovietism should at least be on the Nostalgia for the Soviet Union page but with its own heading. ProjectHorizons (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)ProjectHorizons

I think that the starting point for such decisions needs to be addressed by tackling it as a WP:NOR issue. This could be best approached by checking Google Scholar for the use of the terminology in academic sources. If the uses of the terms are interchangeable, then merging the articles would obviously be the right direction to go in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Food, Warmth, Shelter, Health, Clothing

Though the people were undeniably controlled they all had food on the table, agreed there were political prisoners who lived horrible lives in gulags, but can capitalism be said to be better?

They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhAXtVRopaw

Slovakia, 2003 (Public Relation Institute, Bratislava): 66% said that they lived better under Communism than they do now. Only 8% said they live better now than they did then.

Russia, 2005 (New Russia Barometer Survey): 48% and 85% of those age 73 said that things were better before 1985 than they are today. 49% said they were better off economically before 1990, 28% said they are better off now, and 23% said it is the same.

East Germany, Nov. 2007 (Forsa Institute): 73% supported socialism as a concept but believed it had been poorly implemented. 90%+ said they had better social protection under the GDR.

Bulgaria, Dec. 2007 (Mediana): 33% said they wanted to return to Communism, up from 29% in 2004. 50%+ believed that public property acquired at fire sale prices under privatization since 1990 should be renationalized.

Romania, May 2007 (BERD): 50%+ said the economy was better under Communism than it is now.

Romania, Nov. 2007 (Soros Foundation): 48% said that they lived better under Communism than they do now. 45% still believe in Communism.

Romania, Feb. 2008 (World Bank): Only 20% thought that the economy is better now than it was under Communism.

Hungary, June 2008 (Gfk Piackutato): 62% said thing were better under János Kádár in the period before 1990 than they are now. 14% said that the period since 1990 had been the happiest time of their lives, while 60% said it had been the most miserable time of their lives.

There are a lot of commenters on this site who oppose socialism and Communism for a variety of reasons. I am wondering how these folks can reconcile these figures with their views.

They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I imagine that most of these folks feel that Communism and socialism are failed ideologies that simply don’t work in practice, however noble they may be conceived. If it’s really true that they fail so miserably and obviously, why do so many of those who have lived in the same nation under both Communism and capitalism feel that Communism was better and capitalism was worse?

Are these people simply so insane that they can’t figure out that things are obviously so much better now than they were back then? If their views are not insane, how do you reconcile their opinions with your view that Communism has been a miserable failure?

A common line among anti-Communists is that Communism inevitably starves people and enslaves them. If this is true, and I say it’s not, then are these people simply masochists who enjoy being starved and enslaved? How can we account for their behavior?

Most of you feel that capitalism is obviously superior to Communism. If it is, then why do so few of those who lived in the same nation under both systems agree with you?

Is there any way for you folks to account for the opinions of these folks. Are they simply lazy people who don’t want to take risks and enjoy being coddled and taken care of by a cradle to grave welfare state?

Keep in mind that by 1989, the socialist systems of most of these states were highly heterodox, with lots of collective and even limited private enterprise alongside public property. Censorship laws had been relaxed in most states and there was considerable freedom of speech. In places like Hungary, Goulash Communism or market socialism had created a quite high standard of living.*

• However, in Romania, a terrible Secret Police had instituted a terror state, and this in addition to a ferocious austerity program was the main reason for the violent overthrow of Nicolae Ceauşescu. In the few years before the Revolution of 1989, Ceauşescu had instituted brutal austerity measures in order to try to pay off the nation’s foreign debt.

While this made him very unpopular, I don’t see why anti-Communists, deficit hawks all of them who never been an austerity program too savage for a capitalist state, should object to Ceauşescu putting Romanians on a diet, as Thomas Friedman and his globalist buddies like to quip. Ceauşescu had also created a ridiculous personality cult and blown huge amounts of money on lavish construction projects dedicated to himself.

Section "Reasons"

I had to delete this section twice as original research. Yes, problems of modern Russia are the reason of the SUstalgia. But this statement must come from reliable sources which specifically speak of nostalgia.

By the way, FYI, the roots of many elements of this nostalgia may be actually traced to late Soviet Union itself, where it was nostalgia for Stalin times: "Stalin would not have tolerated all this workplace sloppiness, bribery, favoritism." You could have bought hand-made calendars featuring Stalin from any taxi driver. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainian Poll

An East-Slavic merger has almost nothing to do with the article except for the broadest possible sense. I strongly advocate for a removal, clarification or replacement of the sentence in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orchastrattor (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In Books, Games, Film, and other Media Section

A section on the cultural impact in the forms of media would seem appropriate for this article. There is Soviet nostalgia in all sorts of games, books, and even partly in some film (although this is more rare). The quantity of works of various media types with nostalgia for the Soviet Union I feel justifies at least a brief mention of the topic in the article, given that it is—fundamentally—an article about culture. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

How about Nostalgia for the Russian Empire?

I noticed this phenomenon mentioned here and there, ex. https://fpc.org.uk/russian-empire-between-historic-myth-and-contemporary-reality/ . Can anyone find RS for it and stub it? Or perhaps it merits reframing this very article. Isn't it all just a nostalgia related to Russian imperialism? "Let's make our country=Russia great=big again?" _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Soviet Union (2022)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Soviet Union (2022) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Soviet Union (2022) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Eurohunter (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Communist nostalgia?

I think article Nostalgia for the soviet union and the article Communist nostalgia can be merged, as they both are about a very similar topic, and communist nostalgia is quite lacking, so merging might help with that?

Not sure how these articles are different enough to warrant being separate Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the Soviet Union, while “communist nostalgia” covers the worldwide phenomenon of nostalgia for various communist regimes. It’s much wider in scope. --Katangais (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Stalinobus1.jpg (discussion)
• Михайловка (Сакский район), июнь 2022, 03.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Vltchek reference

The late Russian author and journalist Andre Vltchek wrote an editorial in 2020 elaborating on his views on Soviet nostalgia. They are presented in this article as his opinion and commentary on this topic, from a noteworthy person of interest. They are not presented as necessarily factual, in accordance with the manual of style (see Wikipedia:ASSERT). Vltchek's editorial was published in Chinese and Venezuelan state media sources, which are not considered reliable for assertive facts, but as noted the references provided here do not denote assertive facts, merely Vltchek's opinion.

Thanks, Katangais (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

New section : Aesthetics

Well, Oksana Forostyna is in error. "This cultural narrative was largely abandoned during perestroika" not because of disillusionment, but because Socialist realism was state-sponsored no more. --Altenmann >talk 05:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

On a second reading of the source, Forostyna's comments on the reasons why this narrative was abandoned are quite vague, so I'm going to delete that part of the paragraph. --Katangais (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Contradicting sources

in the section about 'Babushka Z', it says:

"Anna told the Ukrayinska Pravda that she met the soldiers with a Soviet flag not out of sympathy, but because she felt the need to reconcile with them so that they would not "destroy" the village and Ukraine after her house was shelled, but now feels like a "traitor" due to the way her image has been used by Russia."

but in this BBC interview, she says:

1. (holding the USSR flag) "this is a flag of peace and love, and let no one think that this is a flag of bloodshed."
2. "I was just happy that Russians would come and not fight with us. I was happy that we would unite again. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus."

This contradicts the statement that "she felt the need to reconcile with them so they would not destroy the village and ukraine".

Also she doesn't say that "she feels like a traitor", but that:

1. "Because now in Ukraine they consider me a traitor"

Is the Ukrayinska Pravda a reliable source?

IMO the BBC is more impartial here and should be preferred.

(also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soviet_imagery_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Contradicting_sources)

RedAuburn (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Ukrayinska Pravda is rather reliable here and the old lady changed her narrative after the Ukrainian Nazis scared shit out of her. We never know, I guess. Some time in 2014 there were laughs in the internets when two videos surfaced of one and the same lady with very recognizable visage who first greeted Russians "oh you are our liberators" and when the town changed hands she with the same enthusiasm greeted Ukrainian liberators. --Altenmann >talk 03:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)