Did the Soviet Union really destroy centuries of Russian culture?
I've heard from many liberals how big bad Stalin imprisoned artists and destroyed Russian religious, political, and cultural achievements/objects.
Is it lib propaganda or did the Soviet Union actually destroy it?
I mean
The so it union IS russian culture
Is not like Islam that some exterior force took over and replaced it
Theasy closest argument you could make is that it replaced itself
oh boohoo my decadent bourgeois fascist "culture" has been destroyed! however will I reinforce classcuckoldry among the lumpen now?
The USSR destroyed reactionary elements in society in an attempt to ready it for socialism.
Take that as you will.
I do not think churches with immense artistic value should be demolished, but certainly there is something to be said for eradicating the reactionary influence that religion has on a populace.
No, the USSR saw a rebirth of Russian culture like nothing seen before. For example, one of the greatest Russian composers of all time, Dmitri Shostakovich (nicknamed "The Son of the Revolution) was given a chance to study and perform his art solely due to the policies of the soviet government. Add to this the countless folk songs composed and brought back to the forefront, along with the fact that ALL OF MODERN CINEMA is based on techniques developed in the Soviet Union.
Did a form of culture die? Yes, but what was born in its wake was more glorious and more representative of the Russian people than anything made since Peter the Great.
The bad parts of it, yes.
[citation needed]
You misspelled Orson Welles and DW Griffith.
Soviet cinema made a negligible impact on western cinema, as most of it never got shown there.
meant for
Only the reactionary parts.
What, reactionary architecture and art?
Are you implying that architecture is somehow reactionary??
The Soviet Union probably destroyed about as much culture as other states in the same time.
Culture is bourgeois.
In Communism, there is no such thing as culture.
It can be.
if only the soviet union had done it globally 100 years ago, then the internet wouldn't be flooded with annoying greek statues today.
Nothing of value was lost.
isn't this basically what nazbols say, that the ussr was actually a vehicle for russian nationalism under stalin
Kubrick, despite his hatred for communism, listed Sergei Eisenstein as one of his biggest influences, and Kubrick's not the only Western director with a hardon for Soviet cinema.
...
...
It can be.
Kubrick only made a handful of films compared to other directors, and he didn't have full control over some of them, notably his earlier pictures.
While it is true that many of his films were great, I would say that his overall impact on the field is lower than his reputation would suggest.
Pick one, and only one. The mongols, and European monarchs destroyed any “Russian culture” that existed. The idea of “culture” based on ethnicity is retarded anyway, so be glad the soviets helped delay it.
...
You’re right, they’re basically a bunch of inferior drunks, and if it wasn’t for socialism Russia would Still probably be 90 years in the past.
I couldn't give a fuck either way most culture nowadays is just spooky shit that keeps paroles in line.
What a dumb generalization.
A lot of culture isn't related to politics at all and is great in other ways. I think this is a mistake a lot of leftists make; trying to reduce anything to merely political value/message which makes for a narrow worldview.
low quality bait, come back when you at least read one Russian book, watched one Russian movie or listened to one Russian composition
Don’t forget that now they’ve become a degenerated worker state controlled by the rich, they’re attempting to susurp actual socialist movements by interfering with elections, and helping Trump win, and now they’re trying to get anti-communist shills like Bradly manning into senate.
Culture and ethnicity often go hand in hand. Granted in the modern cosmopolitan world culture can be researched and embraced at choice. Language, philosophy, rituals, religion and art are and for most of history have been tied to their creators ethnic group. The myths and legends of ethnic native Americans, Don Quixote to Castillian Spaniards, Ali Baba and the 40 thieves to Arabs. How is the idea that ethnicity and culture go hand in hand often retarded?
Soviet Union was based on Russian cultural hegemony, even more so than Russian Empire.
If this is true, it still doesn't answer OP's question which was more about the concrete actions of Stalin than the broader influence of Russian culture on the USSR.
Please no. Traditionalist architecture isn’t reactionary. Read the Geography of Nowhere to learn why.
The answer is no, the USSR didn't destroy shit. Russian language, literature, arts, in short Russian way of life and thinking dominated the Soviet Union in every sphere. Through mass education the Soviet state basically forced all of these upon the non-Russian peoples. Russian cultural influence even managed to spread beyond Soviet borders after victory in 1945, when Russian language became mandatory in Hungarian, German, Polish, Romanian schools and when Russian cultural products had the absolute primacy. Soviet Union was a Russian state.
Well I live in America…
Splitting from the main topic. Anyone else notice Marxist Leninist nations tend to be highly nationalistic and protective of their culture. My grandpa from the DDR told me how in East Germany everything was German German German. There were no Turks, Poles, Arabs or nothing. It was a German nation that spoke, acted, and thought German.
Can ethnic identity/culture be compatible with Socialism in your guys minds?
Doesn't make a difference, the fakeness of Hollywood culture or the most basic/commercial works of art are no reason to denounce all the good music, books, movies etc. that come out of the underground. I would even say some mainstream culture, such as some Hollywood movies, can be really good even if you despise their bourgeois context.
I don't see why they would be incompatible (for example Ba'ath is pretty much Arab nationalism), but it's another question why you would want to condone such chauvinist feelings at all
Turks and other gastarbeiters were exclusively a West German thing.
Culture will most likely exist in communism, but with it being based around certain collective groups or general geographic community then particular nation. Stop being utopian.
but greek statue avatars are annoying
This
...
brutalist architecture ages like shit, otherwise it's cool.
...
Other than demolishing symbols of the old Tzarist order, I don't know what "culture" the Soviets destroyed.
In fact, the Soviet state was a huge patron of the arts and the Soviet Union almost had a monopoly on great 20th century composers.
Posed wrong first pic
I bet you haven't even heard about the Kuleshov effect
Culture dies all the time and the idea of culture tied to some arbitrary ethnic group is fucking reactionairy
I wonder what brutalist architecture will look like in 2,000 years. seriously if you’re doing a comparison use traditionalist architecture that was built recently. Seriously brutalist architecture is just a concert slab. No attention to detail. Good architecture has lot’s of detail.
No. Some faggots in the party like wanted to destroy parts of Russian culture like St.Basil’s cathedral. But luckily Stalin kept it and just secularized it instead.
Look up "Soviet Montage": the early cinematographers literally invented the art of cutting and splicing differing scenes together for effect. No fucking joke. Sure Wells and Chaplin define the art of acting and directing, but the literal means by which the scene is set was developed Sergei Eisenstein and his motley crew. Ever seen a flash cut? Soviet Montage, A character looking into the camera and then a shot of what they are looking at? Soviet Montage. Heck the entire foundation of film trailers is cocking Soviet Montage.
Also btw watch some of Eisenstein's work: Ivan IV is absolutely gorgeous.
Because East Germany had little immigration because here was no need for it. The DDR had enough labor power to produce enough goods for there people. Also the DDR never did imperialism against other countries forcing people from said countries to migrate to the DDR. Meanwhile in West Germany Porky needed immigrants to drive the cost of labor down. Also West Germany partaked in Imperialism.
Fuck off.
The thing is an icon of Russia now: along with the Kremlin and Red Square.
That looks more modernist than it does "Classical."
Well under Stalin: yes. Under Lenin, the USSR went through a (albeit brief) cultural golden age. Cinema, 3D & canvass arts, literature (especially Ukrainian) and classical & folk music. This was mostly because there was an attempt to take the culture of the Russian /people/ and make it into the mass culture; as opposed to the bourgeois (and tbh practically aristocratic) high art that had preceded the revolution. It should be noted that Russian classical music was unique in this sense, that it did not conform to the norms of the rest of the artistic scene: instead following the nationalist movement found throughout the rest of europe and even had avant-garde elements (Like Stravinsky). However the rest of the artistic scene was not like this at all.
No I mean that is textbook Brutalism. It was started in 1949 in that mode.
Kuleshov and Eisenstein were two of the directors who paid tribute to Griffith.They're right there in the citations.Yes, they made major contributions to the field, I don't deny that.
But Griffith's influence was titanic on a scale most don't understand.
The use of lighting and camera angles to set moods, the close up shot, and the feature length film itself are all down to him.
How do I into the brief cultural golden age? What films/books/compositions/etc. should I look into?
Roger Scrotum pls go
Long answer: no.
This is a thought-terminating cliche spewed by the very idiots who also can't define what Western culture mean. All they're doing is bemoaning losses to their abominable reactionary worldview, and calling it "culture" because Things As They Are is how they are supposed to be, which is the essence of the reactionary.
Film: Battleship Potemkin
Music: The works of Dmitri Shostakovich (I would recommend the 1905 symphony, you will already know Jazz Waltz №2
Literature: Honestly my weak point, most of the great works were from Ukraine and I haven't read them myself, but the works of: Mykola Fitilyov, Mykola Kulish, Yohansen and Pavlo Tychyna were all born during this revolution.
Art: Basically the entire constructivist movement.
However, a lot of this culture was repressed in the 1930s (the best examples being Stalin's utter distaste for Shostakovich's 'Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk' and his refusal to publish the second part of Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible [which was done so by Khruschjov in 1956, about a decade after Eisenstein's death]). And thus ended what could have been a great cultural era in the USSR.
I am not denying Griffith's role, but without Soviet montage cinema as we know it today would not exist: that is not incongruent with the same statement about Griffith. Also unironically everyone should watch Birth of a Nation; which it is hyper racist it is a v good film
Leninism was a mistake
There're at least a couple of churches in Russia I would like to see burn, not gonna lie.
Can you define western culture?
Sure, here's a recent snapshot.
idk about buildings
but the USSR and Stalin in particular are known to revive Russian customs
Finally the capitalists have made naked sushi that any red blooded American can enjoy
Oh yeah, just one thing. I'm not being entirely facetious with that pic. Western culture what is perceived by alt-right & co. as Western culture has been thoroughly debased by capitalism, hollowing it out and filling it with itself. Now capitalism, wearing the flayed face of Western culture as a mask, has an army of new reactionaries defending the killer of what they claim to revere.
they did strip churches from their gold because there was no reason not to. if it were me i'd do a lot worse
kek
why? are you Russian?