This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the
Guild of Copy Editors,
Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on May 22, 2016. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{
copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our
project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Merge proposal |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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
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=GhAXtVRopawCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
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.*
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
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.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the
Guild of Copy Editors,
Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on May 22, 2016. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{
copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our
project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Merge proposal |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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
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=GhAXtVRopawCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
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.*
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
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.