Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Life Under Communism Was No Liberation For Women

Nostalgic accounts of life under communism avoid the broader perspective of widespread oppression and economic failure.

Over the last few months, The New York Times has published a number of warm and nostalgic recollections of communism. Authors have opined about the supposed optimism, idealism, and moral authority of communism. Perhaps the most bizarre article so far claimed that women behind the Iron Curtain enjoyed greater sexual satisfaction and more independence than their Western counterparts (except, of course, when it came to freedom of thought, speech, religion, association, or movement).

I would have chosen to commemorate 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution and the birth of the Soviet Union in a different way. Over 100,000,000 people have died or were killed while building socialism during the course of the 20th century. Call me crazy, but that staggering number of victims of communism seems to me more important than the somewhat dubious claim that Bulgarian comrades enjoyed more orgasms than women in the West. But as one Russian babushka said to another, suum cuique pulchrum est.

I am, however, intrigued by the striking similarities between the Times articles. To the greatest extent possible, they seem to avoid the broader perspective on life under communism (i.e., widespread oppression and economic failure). Instead, they focus on the experiences of individual people, some of whom never lived in communist countries in the first place.

In "When Communism Inspired Americans," the author remembers her socialist parents and the life of the communist sympathizers in 1950s America. In "Thanks to Mom, the Marxist Revolutionary," the author remembers his batty mother, who dragged him from one communist hellhole to another in search of a "real world" experience. In "'Make It So': 'Star Trek' and Its Debt to Revolutionary Socialism," the author quotes Captain Picard, who explains to a cryogenically unfrozen businessman from the 20th century, "People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy."

Speaking of hunger and infancy, here are some completely gratuitous eyewitness accounts of parents eating their own children during the man-made famine in Ukraine in the 1930s. Communism may have influenced science fiction writers, but real life in the USSR was no picnic.

"Where did all bread disappear, I do not really know, maybe they have taken it all abroad. The authorities have confiscated it, removed from the villages, loaded grain into the railway coaches and took it away someplace. They have searched the houses, taken away everything to the smallest thing. All the vegetable gardens, all the cellars were raked out and everything was taken away. Wealthy peasants were exiled into Siberia even before Holodomor during the 'collectivization.' Communists came, collected everything....People were laying everywhere as dead flies. The stench was awful. Many of our neighbors and acquaintances from our street died....Some were eating their own children. I would have never been able to eat my child. One of our neighbors came home when her husband, suffering from severe starvation, ate their own baby daughter. This woman went crazy."

One has to wait until "Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism," to meet an actual Eastern European. "Consider Ana Durcheva from Bulgaria," the author writes, "who was 65 when I first met her in 2011. Having lived her first 43 years under Communism, she often complained that the new free market hindered Bulgarians' ability to develop healthy amorous relationships. 'Sure, some things were bad during that time, but my life was full of romance.'" Durcheva's daughter, in contrast, works too much, "and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband."

What are we to make of this? Are we merely to deduce that the life of a young and, apparently, attractive woman behind the Iron Curtain was not completely devoid of pleasure? No. The article is explicit in stating that "communist women enjoyed a degree of self-sufficiency that few Western women could have imagined."

This is unadulterated rubbish. I grew up under communism, and here is what I recall.

First, all communist countries were run by men; female leaders, like Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, would have been unthinkable. Women who rose to prominence, like Raisa Gorbachev and Elena Ceausescu, did so purely as appendages of their powerful husbands.

Second, the author concedes that "gender wage disparities and labor segregation persisted, and...the communists never fully reformed domestic patriarchy." I would say so. In a typical Eastern European family, the woman, in addition to having a day job at a factory, was expected to clean the apartment, shop for food, cook dinner, and raise the children. The Western sexual revolution passed the communist bloc by, and ex-communist countries remain much more patriarchal than their Western counterparts to this day.

Third, communist societies were socially uber-conservative. As such, pornography and prostitution were strictly prohibited, divorces were discouraged and divorced people ostracized, and prophylactics and the pill were hard to obtain. (Think about it for one hot second. Why would economies unable to produce enough bread and toilet paper generate a plentiful and regular supply of condoms? This makes no sense!) The reason why we refer to communist countries as "totalitarian" is because the state wanted to control every aspect of human existence. Sexual autonomy was, well, autonomous. Being outside the control of the all-powerful state, it was treated with suspicion and suppressed.

But don't take my word for it. You can still visit a few communist countries, including Cuba and North Korea, and compare the social status and empowerment of their women with those in the West. Had the esteemed editors of the Times done so, they would have, I hope, thought twice about publishing a series of pro-communist excreta.

Photo Credit: Daniel Garica Peris/flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jerryskids||

    Had the esteemed editors of the Times done so, they would have, I hope, thought twice about publishing a series of pro-communist excreta.

    Dream on. You really don't know that True Believers are capable of not just ignoring all evidence but of twisting the evidence to make it prove the opposite point?

  • timbo||

    The only way to un-brainwash a Marxist is when the Stasi is coming down the street with tanks and water cannons.

    These idiots never realize it until it is too late.

  • Wizard4169||

    It takes a lot more than that to shake the faith of the real die-hards. Even after they were in the camps, they'd still maintain that it was just an isolated injustice, and they'd be free tomorrow if only Comrade Stalin knew the truth.

  • esteve7||

    ^ This

    Jordan Peterson talks about that all the time and he repeatedly brings up the gulag archipelago. They are so ideologically possessed that they still don't believe it even when in the camps.

    It was the anti-communists that fared the best in the camps, because they knew what it would be like and they expected it. The 'true believers' couldn't process it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Apparently a couple-three decades removed from the Soviet Union is enough for everyone to start getting nostalgic for communism. I understand the appeal to those with limited or selective knowledge of the subject, the idea that the state will take care of all your needs so long as we all completely ignore human nature and work selflessly and tirelessly for the common good. People, in general, tend to be fucking idiots.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I often wonder why any man remained in the GDR before the closing of the Berlin Wall. I have a hunch that the answer is "Lots of Pussy".

  • Chumby||

    Because they lived and worked where they were. And didn't believe they couldn't go "west" until the Iron Curtain was up.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Ha, I reckon the NYT is trying to sell socialism to the millenials still living in their parents' basements. "Join us comrades! You have nothing to lose but your jerkoff sock!"

  • Libertarian||

    Since the NYTimes is hurting financially, wouldn't it be cheaper to rerun old Durant columns?

  • Libertarian||

    *Duranty

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A cha cha cha

  • Don't look at me.||

    I got a million of em.

  • ||

    The New York Times:

    Written by and for losers.

    Seriously. Pathetic.

    Just awfully degenerate.

  • joebwan||

    "'Life is extremely hard for Soviet women,' she said. 'There are no supermarkets, no real conveniences, not even sanitary napkins.'"

    Ah, the good old days.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Something tells me I should be thankful you botched the link, given the reference to no sanitary napkins.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Blood bath!

    Never trust anything that bleeds for a week and does not die.

  • Brian||

    "'People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy.'"

    When socialists aren't obsessed with wealth equality, income quality, employment equality, progressive taxation, and who exactly deserves to make this, keep that, and give to whoever, then, really, they're just above material concerns.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Star Trek represented a post-scarcity economy. That's an important context to that socialist utopia.

  • Brian||

    It's easy to pat myself on the back for outgrowing obsolete problems.

    Why, I've mastered the farm chores. Takes a lot of good old fashioned work ethic, but I've taken care of that, and 'tis noble, indeed.

  • Rhywun||

    If I didn't have a no-NYT policy it would be interesting to see if that point is glossed over in their article.

  • MJBinAL||

    Star Trek was great in that it, like most good literature, was based on moral plays. Star Trek was shit (even for a Trekkie like me) in that socialist clap-trap kept getting thrown in.

    There is no such thing as a post-scarcity economy unless it is completely stagnant with no new developments, no new ideas, no new experiences. Anything new, will at least for a time, be scarce. Anything new is automatically desirable.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I've tried making that point with socialists, that collectivism only works in a stagnant highly tuned society, that the slightest deviation will upset it and take years of further fine tuning. It can't handle natural disasters. It can't handle innovation. It can't even handle normal human events, like sick days, old age, and death.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In other words, it does not work. Because "life" happens.

  • ThomasD||

    One functional definition of 'life' being 'what happens after you have made other plans.'

  • King's Ransom||

    Yes ..the most common slight deviation is a super hot female. Super hot females like things and like security. Show me th communist paradise that can provide the solution to the super hot chick scarcity issue and associated competition involved in that eternal struggle and I say sign me up

  • Mickey Rat||

    In the Federation you work your ass off just because you enjoy it so damn much, wanting to get compensated fir it is primitive thinking. The people in Starfleet are probably the misfits in that society.

  • Brandybuck||

    The Next Generation Star Trek was also absurdly ridiculous in both its economics and its sociology. Thinly veiled Leftist propaganda. Their first depiction of the Ferengi was as depraved scuttlers with whips who kept their women unclothed. How were we informed that they were the bad guys? We were told they sought profit.

  • jjjjj||

    I much preferred DS9. They knew that if they really needed something acquired or performed, you could count on Quark or Garak.

  • damikesc||

    Funny, the leadership of those countries never seemed to get over that concern.

  • damikesc||

    Always remember, it is unfair to say the NY Times is overly sympathetic to Communism. History and the current series of nostalgia for the murderous, anti-human rights cult notwithstanding.

  • MJBinAL||

    Hmmm, can we say the NY Times is a communist publication?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some of us have been saying this for some time now.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I thonk the proper term is "useful idiot".

  • Kat||

    I called to cancel my subscription in 2003. The woman in customer service insisted I tell her why. I didn't really want to tell them the reason. What's the point? But she insisted like her life depended on it. So, I told her the real reason I canceled: I got enough exposure to Communist propaganda before I finally fled the USSR and wasn't interested in more. She slammed the phone down.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    {raucous applause}

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Reality detested, transfigured, and then ultimately re-purposed.

    The macabre and horrific morphs into the exotic and alluring when scrutinized through the wistful lens of political dementia conjoined with demands of fantasy.

    Time designers romanticizing past terrors on placid pages emotes a unique scariness.

  • timbo||

    Indeed. Their delusions project both awe and terror at the same time.

    Kind of like 1984.

  • Rhywun||

    It cannot be overemphasized how disgraceful that newspaper is. I refuse to read it and current post aside, where the links are necessary to the story, I hate how reason links to them so often.

  • colorblindkid||

    The best thing they ever published was their hit piece on Marco Rubio about his wife having a bunch of traffic tickets.

  • mtrueman||

    I was surprised to learn that Soviet Russia was the first nation, back in the early 1920s, to criminalize the rape of a woman by her husband. This behaviour remained legal in the USA, in some states at least, until decades later. For all the bad of the USSR, bourgeois nations seem content to copy them.

  • timbo||

    I was surprised to learn that the communists under Mao and Stalin are responsible for about 90 million murders. That's almost as bad.

    You're right, the US is the worst place on earth.

  • mtrueman||

    It was the communists who criminalized marital rape. Capitalists followed suit decades later.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It was the communists who normalized mass murder. Capitalists have still not been able to stop them.

    FTFY

  • mtrueman||

    It was marital rape the communists criminalized. I said as much in my first post.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Picking fly shit out of pepper.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And Commies needed a law for that.

    Wives were property too, I am sure the commies deemed that property of the state.

    People of Communist countries sure are getting all kinds of raped- all the time.

  • mtrueman||

    "People of Communist countries sure are getting all kinds of raped- all the time."

    But capitalists come round to communist thinking, given time. This is one example, another that comes to mind was last week when libertarians on the board were writing, "fuck it, let's just go with single payer health insurance and let the chips fall where they may." or words to that effect.

  • Kat||

    You will believe anything, won't you?

    In the USSR we had all sorts of laws, including a constitution outlining all kinds of rights. All of it was bullshit. How often were men prosecuted under these anti-marital rape laws? Try NEVER.

    In fact, violence against women simply wasn't looked into at all by authorities. They brushed off violent attacks as "domestic matters". A woman could come crawling into the police station bloodied and broken and the reaction would be "meh". Worse, she was stigmatized. In fact, Human Rights Watch had something to say about it. Here's an excerpt from their report:

    "Domestic violence is not the only form of violence against women that has been overlooked rather than investigated by the Russian criminal justice system. Women who have suffered sexual assault and rape, whether at home, on the job or in the streets, have reported police indifference and even hostility toward their claims.97 According to Natalia Gaidarenko,founder of the independent Moscow Sexual Assault Recovery Center, "One lawyer admitted that the police rarely believe a rape victim.""

  • mtrueman||

    "All of it was bullshit. "

    Bullshit or not, America thought it a good idea to adopt these same laws decades later.

  • Kat||

    OMG. You actually believe you have a good point.

    I can only deal with people who have a measurable IQ.

  • mtrueman||

    "I can only deal with people who have a measurable IQ."

    And not very well, at that. If you have an argument to make, make it.

  • King's Ransom||

    This is your rational argument in defense of communism and all its horror???

    mtrueman ...you are one dumb fucker

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Meanwhile in the USA many men did not rape their wives because they didn't need a law to hurt their wives.

    Fucking Communists.

  • timbo||

    I love the shallow arguments of apologists. With mountains of evidence of the failures and atrocities of Marxism, they point to one black eye, if even properly explained, in the history of the most prosperous, richest, and free country on earth.

    Only in American can an army of ignorant complainers succeed in breaking down the only economy in the history of the world that worked based on individual achievement, personal responsibility, and free trade based on limited gov't action.
    These *ssholes want the opposite and have no idea why.
    Oh, I know why. They hate successful people and are brainwashed by class warfare envy.

  • mtrueman||

    "Only in American can an army of ignorant complainers succeed in breaking down the only economy in the history of the world that worked based on individual achievement, personal responsibility, and free trade based on limited gov't action."

    They never taught you about slavery in school? America's primary industries for centuries, cotton, tobacco and cane, relied totally on slave labour. They would not have existed without slaves and slavers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We have cotton, tobacco, and cane without slaves.

    Slaves delayed the introduction of better machines and farming techniques to increase yields and makes farming easier.

    In other words, government rules held back farming improvements.

  • mtrueman||

    "We have cotton, tobacco, and cane without slaves."

    It's not an industry without slavery though. Keep minimizing slavery though. It's just what any good communist would do.

    "government rules held back farming improvements."

    It was people who bought and sold slaves. Government rules, my ass. No government forced anyone to buy slaves. What the hell happened to personal responsibility? Which you have the effrontery to bring up. The poor slave owners are victims, too! The government made them do it. What a pathetic excuse. Next you are going to try to tell me you actually support criminalizing marital rape.

  • Brian||

    My, what a tall moral high horse you have there, USSR apologist.

  • mtrueman||

    Is it evil to point out that communists criminalized marital rape decades before capitalists because it gives a good impression of communism and a poor impression of capitalism.

  • Brian||

    The big problem with the USSR relative to the USA is that the USA abolished slavery approx. 50 years before the USSR adopted it as it's primary economic model.

    That's why USSR apologists hand wave about marital rape: it's called "desperation."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Boy, I really touched a commie nerve with government being the problem and protecting slavery.

    Commies then created a slave state where if you didn't work for the state, they shipped you off to a gulag.

  • mtrueman||

    I don't think they thought of themselves as slaves, even if you do. During WWII they fought like wildcats against the Nazis. Slave armies don't exhibit a lot of bravery.

  • Seamus||

    I'm guessing you've never heard of the mamelukes.

  • mtrueman||

    "I'm guessing you've never heard of the mamelukes."

    It's an elite regiment of slaves. The Red Army was quite different. Their soldiers were drawn from all walks of life. Many of its most seasoned professionals had been purged before the war.

  • Kat||

    "During WWII they fought like wildcats against the NazisSlave armies don't exhibit a lot of bravery."

    LOL. Um...have you EVER taken a history class of any kind? Let me give you a brief history lesson.

    When the Nazis first invaded they were treated as liberators. Yep! Those of us who were feeling all cozy and taken care of by our great Commie leaders were totes thrilled when the Nazi tanks rolled in. Until the Nazis made the mistake of committing mass murder. That's when sentiment turned. Honey, when someone is literally standing on your farm next to a Panzer aimed at your house, you fight like a wildcat. That's just a natural human reaction.

    Soldiers who fought in the red army (and my family, like all Russian families, was chock full of them) were not all that thrilled to be fighting for Stalin. However, to use just one officer's story, he and his troop had a long conversation and decided that under the Nazis they would certainly die and under Stalin at least the had some non-zero probability of living, so they reluctantly decided to fight the Nazis.

  • mtrueman||

    "a Panzer aimed at your house"

    A slave doesn't have a house. Brian thought the Red Army was a slave army and I disagreed.

  • Kat||

    You don't know that slaves live in houses? You don't know that even evil plantation owners had slave quarters?

    Crack a history book. Seriously. I'm not sure it'll do you any good because you actually have to have matter between your ears to process it, but give it a go anyway.

  • mtrueman||

    "You don't know that slaves live in houses? "

    Slaves live in houses owned by others. Whereas, Soviet citizens decided to defend their homes from German invaders, as you've told me. Hardly what one would expect of a slave. It wasn't the case in the USA during their slave war.

  • Kat||

    Of course you have a Soviet apologist, because this fool has never lived in the Soviet Union.

    Sweety, all we had in the USSR was slave labour. We were told where to live, where to work, where we could shop, when and where we could travel and we were all issued "record of toil" booklets where work was recorded. We had to have this booklet on us and at the ready to prove to any authority that we were actually toiling and were not "burdens on society".

    And saying those industries would not have existed without slavery is moronic. If that were true then those industries would have disappeared after slavery was abolished in 1865. Those industries in the U.S. first took hold at a time when slavery was a thing all over the world. That work could have as easily been performed by free labour.

    See? Knowing facts is important.

  • mtrueman||

    If the citizens were slaves, how do you account for "officers reluctantly deciding to fight the Nazis?" Surely a slave is in no position to make such decisions. It's the job of the slave master.

  • Kat||

    yeah. Because historically slaves didn't make decisions like trying to run away along things like the Underground Railroad because bein' slaves and all their brains leaked out of their head and they couldn't make decisions like that. That's why all the Southern slaves just stayed on the plantation during the Civil War. None of them ran away in the chaos because it's not their decisions to make.

  • mtrueman||

    If the confederate army was composed entirely of slaves, you might have a point.

  • damikesc||

    They never taught you about slavery in school? America's primary industries for centuries, cotton, tobacco and cane, relied totally on slave labour. They would not have existed without slaves and slavers.

    What, EXACTLY, do you describe labor in the Soviet Union?

    Voluntary?

  • mtrueman||

    "What, EXACTLY, do you describe labor in the Soviet Union?"

    It tended to be hellish for most. I don't think slavery in the US is anything to boast about, either.

  • damikesc||

    It was slavery in both instances.

  • mtrueman||

    I know you think so. I'm not convinced USSR citizens saw themselves as slaves, and that accounts for their apparently voluntary decision to fight in the Red Army.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    There is no "voluntary decision-making" in a communist conscription scheme. You go where the Party tells you to go, or you count trees- if you're lucky.

    More to the point, why is it surprising that *slaves* might actually be willing to fight for their *slavers* voluntarily, when the alternative is *actual extermination*?

    If the Union had invaded the South with the express purpose of murdering every black man, woman and child they found, do you think that said black men wouldn't've gladly taken up arms alongside the greycoats, even as they retained their long-earned loathing of them?

  • mtrueman||

    "There is no "voluntary decision-making" in a communist conscription scheme. You go where the Party tells you to go, or you count trees- if you're lucky."

    I didn't mean to imply that the soldiers of the Red Army were free to decide where they were posted, what their rank would be or their duties. I'm just not convinced that the Red Army soldiers thought of themselves as slaves. Even people who were not sympathetic to the communist cause joined up. Like A. Solzhenitsyn. We may know better, given the passage of time and new information coming to light, but that doesn't change the motives that make the brave soldiers of the mighty Red Army fight as ferociously as they did.

    "If the Union had invaded the South with the express purpose of murdering every black man, woman and child they found,"

    We can fantasize about what might have been, but the North was rife with abolitionists who would never haves stood for such a thing.

  • Longtobefree||

    Uh, where did you go to school?
    Centuries indicates more than one. Slavery in the USA never made one. (Independence in 1776, freedom after the War Between the States, 1864. 1864 - 1776 = 88)
    By the early 1800's, before the War Between the States, the agrarian part of the economy was around 50%, down from a high of 80% or so. And that is all farming, not just your favorite three.
    And somehow those three "primary industries" were run by about 25% of the population. That is the percentage of slave owners, according to the 1840 census.
    Not even going to get into small farmers growing cotton and tobacco without slaves.
    A little tidbit from Wikipedia: Fewer than one-third of Southern families owned slaves at the peak of slavery prior to the Civil War. Guess that means there were a few slaves in the north, maybe?

  • Kat||

    Not to mention that most slave owners owned one or two. Big cotton plantations were few and it was really cotton that re-invigorated the dying slave industry in the South. Rice, tobacco and sugar were already uneconomic to run with slave labour.

  • mtrueman||

    "Slavery in the USA never made one. "

    Don't know what you mean. Slavery in America didn't begin in 1776,

  • Kat||

    AMERICA began in 1776, so anything in America began when America began. Now you get it?

    My money is on "no".

  • mtrueman||

    "AMERICA began in 1776,"

    You are confusing the date of the signing of the declaration of independence for something else.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Huh. Weird how the free-soil North had twice the population of the slaveholding South... And more than 3 times its economic output.

    Most of America- basically anywhere outside of the Deep South- never had any significant slave population, and populations of Native American and Chinese immigrant laborers were always small.

    America was built by free hands.

  • mtrueman||

    Exports from US to Europe were primarily slave products like cotton, cane and tobacco.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And that subtracts from the *greater* contribution of Northern Free-soiler factories and ports to those goods' processing, assembly, and transportation how? Are you suggesting that any industry that takes in goods from slave labor is unable to claim responsibilty for their own work? Because by that logic, no human being has ever been responsible for their own work ever.

    Seriously, how do you manage to look at a country where 1/3 of the populace are in slave states, and 2/3 are in free-soil states; and see that the free-soil states have a significantly higher GDP and growth rate than the slave states; and not realize that slavery was A, only representative of minus-33% of the nation's overall GDP, and B, a burden on the 66%-plus that remained?

    And where did you get this idea that exports are an automatic indicator of economic relevance? Do you think there were no farms in the North? Food couldn't just be refrigerated and shipped back then, you know. Plenty of jobs that slaves held in the south, were held by free men in the north- and the freemen did a better job, and contributed more to the GDP of the nation than the slaves did. Trade is just part of the equation. A nation's economy is more than its exports.

  • mtrueman||

    For a very long time the economic powerhouse of America was Virginia. Home to several of the first few presidents, and military leaders. Eventually other states became more prominent. Tobacco, cane and cotton were in heavy demand in Europe and they all prosper in the malarial south where it was necessary to employ workers from Africa coz the white ones dropped dead.

    Save the crackpot economics for someone else.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Yeah, those other states became prominent... In the 50 years *before the Civil War*.

    But by the time of the War, the Northern industrial states had exceeded the South in prosperity. Translation: they became the "economic powerhouse of America".

    Also funny how you argue that the North was dependent on Southern slavery... Even though actually *going to war with said South* rather self-evidently didn't slow them down. There was some smuggling of cotton northward, but not nearly enough to keep an entire country of 20 million people going. And yet they won the war, with said economic SUPERIORITY being one of the primary factors why.

    "crackpot economics" would be a great retort on your part, if it weren't for the complete lack of any further counter-arguments afterward.

  • Agammamon||

    No, it did not.

  • Brian||

    mtrueman:

    For all the bad of the USSR, bourgeois nations seem content to copy them.

    That's a strange way to describe the collapse of the USSR.

  • mtrueman||

    My ways seem strange to the great unwashed, O Brian.

  • Brian||

    Have you ever considered just saying that you can't think of anything else to say?

    It's more honest.

  • mtrueman||

    What more do you want me to say? There's an article about women in the USSR and I contribute a fact about the issue. Namely, the USSR was the first nation to criminalize marital rape.

  • MJBinAL||

    We are surprised you can learn also.

  • MJBinAL||

    I read your post again.
    Surprise has faded.
    You do not seem have learned anything after all.

  • the_decadents||

    I'm sure the women of Eastern Europe would be pleased to know that the men who raped them en masse were prohibited in their home country from raping their own wives. Quelle progression!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Oh, well, I guess that makes everything else they did A-OK. I think you may actually be dumber than Tony.

  • mtrueman||

    "Oh, well, I guess that makes everything else they did A-OK."

    You support the communist criminalization of marital rape? Remember it's communist.

  • damikesc||

    Yes, and Hitler was really opposed to smoking and loved dogs.

    If you don't smoke and stomp on puppies, you're REALLY a Nazi.

  • Kat||

    "You support the communist criminalization of marital rape? Remember it's communist."

    You're like broken record with this idiocy. You know there's this thing called "the internet" where you can actually do something called "fact checking". You don't even need to rely on old USSR escapees like me to teach you.

    "Russian authorities' failure to investigate and prosecute effectively battery and rape in the home and their biased response to rape victims establish a pattern of discriminatory treatment by the criminal justice system of female victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Such treatment violates Russia's international obligations to guarantee that its female citizens enjoy equal protection of the law and civil and political rights without discrimination. Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for "the equal treatment of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights . . . ." Article 26 further provides that "all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law." Furthermore, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) obligates states parties "to pursue a policy of eliminating discrimination . . . to refrain from engaging in any act of discrimination...[and] to ensure that public authorities and institutions shall act in conformity with this obligation."

  • mtrueman||

    I'm only pointing out that USSR was the first nation to criminalize marital rape and long after capitalist countries followed suit. I understand your anger over communist prosecutors not doing their job. You are also angry over capitalist legislators dragging their feet for decades while husbands rape wives with impunity.

  • Kat||

    The point I'm making (and I can't believe you are so dimwitted that I must make it) is that rape of any kind was not actually criminalized.

    But, nice try. You know you'd be first in line to be slaughtered by the commies, right? Of course you don't.

  • mtrueman||

    "You know you'd be first in line to be slaughtered by the commies, right? Of course you don't."

    They'll have to get in line. Many historical figures and movements have me in mind for the slaughter. It comes with the territory when you've led a life as full of adventure as I have.

    "The point I'm making (and I can't believe you are so dimwitted that I must make it) is that rape of any kind was not actually criminalized."

    Marital rape was criminalized back in the early 20s, decades before it was in the capitalist countries. Whether or not the Soviet prosecutors did their work takes nothing away from the far-sighted legislators who beat their capitalist counterparts by 50 years.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Unless the man in question was named Lavrentiy.

  • jjjjj||

    The lesson of Star Trek is that socialism works so long as you have a magical technology like replicators

  • timbo||

    It also works in fantasyland.
    It works in the minds of Bernie, Castro, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Che, Barack, Tony, palin butt, MTrueman, Ceausescu, Pinochet, Allende, etc...

    It works so well that all they have to do is detain, imprison, and murder anyone that disagrees with how well it works.

  • mtrueman||

    Ho Ho Ho.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I see in the news that google and others are banning neo-nazi sites.

    I welcome the day when they also ban neo-marxist sites. But I won't hold my breath.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That's the thing that got me about some footage I saw of "antifa" protests in Seattle: people waving hammer-and-sickle flags. I guess they really don't know that those flags are every bit as bad as Nazi or Confederate flags. Maybe they were asleep in history class. Or more likely their history class sucked.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Marxists killed 100M people in the 20th century and continue killing them today. Nazis killed far fewer; 10M? and kill so few today that when one pretender kills one with a car, it's big news. Muslims didn't kill enough last century to make much of a dent, but they kill hundreds or thousands today, far more than Nazis, and get apologies and excuses.

    And they wonder how the alt-right gets a foothold. Fuck 'em all. Government is the enemy, coercive monopolistic government, the honey trap to end all honey traps.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialism is the sweetest honey trap of them all.

    bzzzz.

  • mtrueman||

    "And they wonder how the alt-right gets a foothold."

    Morans like you minimizing Nazi crimes doesn't hurt.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And the Commies killed more people than the socialist Nazis did.

  • mtrueman||

    Commies killed more commies than the socialist Nazis did. So what?

  • Kat||

    Oh right. Because "commies" (by which you mean human beings who were not actual Communists but happen to have been trapped in a Communist regime) are okay to kill.

    So, your logic on this thread is this: It's cool for Commies to slaughter and send to the gulags millions of people, including homosexuals (which was illegal and that law was enforced), so long as they have completely ignored and unenforced laws against marital rape on their books? Commies killing "so what?". America had slaves for a brief period in its history, OMG! Capitalism kills!

    Got it. So, it's not human slaughter you're against. It's who is doing it. I really wish I could send you back to my homeland so you could receive the full experiences. You so deserve it.

  • mtrueman||

    "So, your logic on this thread is this: "

    I am pointing out that more communists died at the hands of communists (during purges of 30s) than the Nazis managed to kill. It's a simple statement of facts. No need to get all emotional and defensive about American slavery.

  • mtrueman||

    " I guess they really don't know that those flags are every bit as bad as Nazi or Confederate flags. "

    Clean out your head gear, sandwich man. Did Nazi or Confederate flags ever outlaw private property? Did they execute aristocrats, business persons or jail raping husbands? Communist flags are incomparably worse than Nazi or Confederate flags.

  • damikesc||

    Well, no capitalist killed 1/4 of his country's population trying to make it an agrarian society.

    Communism has that one on its mantle.

  • mtrueman||

    "Well, no capitalist killed 1/4 of his country's population trying to make it an agrarian society."

    Or an Industrial one.. Did you know that at the same time that Stalin was doing his thing in the Ukraine, which I'm sure has been mentioned here today, he was also doing the same in Khazakstan. Same things, forced population transfer, famine etc. But Stalin was forcing the semi-nomadic herders to move to the city and take up jobs in his new factories. At the end of this campaign half the population of Khazakstan were dead.

    It's true that communists kill off their own, when given the chance. But capitalists kill off others, like the American Indians, or the Indian Indians.

  • Kat||

    "It's true that communists kill off their own, when given the chance. But capitalists kill off others, like the American Indians, or the Indian Indians."

    So what you're saying is that you don't know the meaning of words and history is as mysterious as Hogwarts to you.

  • mtrueman||

    No, I'm not saying that. Read the comment again if you need clarification. Not sure I can help you with your Hogwarts. I have corns, myself.

  • Kat||

    No, I can't read your comment again because you've already given me a bad case of idiot poisoning. Case in point: you have no idea that you've said what you've said. You don't know where the sun rises, where it sets, which way is up, what planet you're on.

  • mtrueman||

    "Case in point: you have no idea that you've said what you've said. You don't know where the sun rises, where it sets, which way is up, what planet you're on."

    Well argued.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I think it's telling you refer to "jailing raping husbands" and "executing businessmen" in the same sarcastic sentence.

  • mtrueman||

    Workers of the world appreciate a careful reader.

  • CE||

    How long til Reason is on the list?

  • King's Ransom||

    The day that happens is the day space Jesus return to Earth and re-gifts us the blessing of immortality! Lo..the humans have finally come to their senses!

  • Romi||

    I lived in Romania which was a Communist country until 1989. Only an ignorant would glamorize life under Communism. Here are a few facts that I lived - most of the time the electricity was turned off around 9PM and back on around 4AM. We had hot water only 3 times a week. The rest of the time we had to heat water in the washing machine and use it carefully. The lines for toilet paper, bread, eggs, meat...etc. were lasting for hours. Some you would get only if you have a card. Of course you had to pay but the card was controlling the amount consumed each month. For example you were allowed to buy half litter of oil/month per person in your household. The same for sugar and bread.
    We were listening to Free Europe and The Voice of America using an old radio that was working on batteries. If we were to be caught doing that we would have been thrown in jail.
    They had their own stores that weren't made public and many people didn't know about it. You had to be a high ranked member of the party to be able to have access to those stores.
    The people that are glamorizing and missing the Communism are the ones that were members of the Party and they were getting lots of perks and freebies but the normal person doesn't miss it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have been to Constanta, Romania and inland into the mountains in 1996. I saw people waiting in line for propane canisters to fill them up.

    People were nice but poor and everything looked Communist gloomy. I was surprised at how many gypsies there were as I thought the Commies killed most of them.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, but they were right about one thing:

    Jews and Gypsies really are like cockroaches- they're impossible to get rid of, and they're still here long after you're gone!

  • Kat||

    You had a washing machine that heated your water? LUCKY! Ours in Moscow was just a giant tub you had to fill with hot water. Also, you had eggs, toilet paper and meat? Dude, you were rich. I remember standing in line for two hours in the biting cold hoping that the surly hussy throwing spuds down the shoot at us didn't run out of half-rotted potatoes by the time it was our turn. During a surgery I had they ran out of anesthesia and had to strap me down to finish cutting me.

    But, it was all fine, of course, because there was a completely ignored, unenforced law on the books that my husband couldn't rape me.

  • King's Ransom||

    Wasn't there some issue with thousands of neglected AIDS babies that were a state/party embarrassment as well? Some good reading there for the budding communist apologist.

  • Trainer||

    About 15 years ago I opened a unschooling school with a friend. A teacher we hired had convinced the kids that the school should be run by consensus. I had no idea that that is communist word for "bully session until the powerful beat down the weak until they get their way." We put an end to it very quickly when we saw the results.

    Our (until then unknown to us) communist employee brought in his roommate to convince us that "consensus" is the only way to be fair. We agreed to meet with him and he introduced himself as a Marxist therapist and started in right away using the warm and fuzzy Sandinista as his example. He said they would all discuss for days- day and night- until they came to a consensus. I thought about for a second and then asked what they were eating if they were all in a building discussing. He said the woman brought in the food. Yeah, those liberated communist women were in the kitchen cooking and cleaning up after the men. We fired the teacher that day.

  • JFree||

    I can't wait for the next installment - The Wonders of Sharia

    Article ideas:
    No reported rapes in Saudi Arabia

    Don't be a slave to fashion. Wear a burqa.

    72 virgins or 72 grapes. Either are better than rotting in a grave.

  • King's Ransom||

    But they invented fucking sheep vs defiling your neighbors 22 year old property errr daughter....

  • Empress Trudy||

    Of course this is nonsense. Was sex better when 7 people were forced to live together in a 2 room apartment? Was sex better when everyone you knew was a police informant? You know what was better under Communism? Alcoholism. Being drunk all the time was better because as we used to say "We pretend to work they pretend to pay us" and then when you came home from your shift at The Red Revolution People's First October Industrial Combine and Pumpkin Farm #57 you topped off on cheap vodka to drown out your neighbor's fights.

  • Kat||

    Exactly. Every FAMILY had the right to nine square meters of space. So, three generations were often stuffed into one room and what is more sexy than trying to get it on sandwiched between your grandparents and your children?

    I remember people who had single rooms to themselves would illegally rent them out to couples trying to have sex in private. Fun. For everybody.

  • searchingmind||

    In the 1930's, the US Government asked former slaves to tell what life had been like back then. Reading these brief accounts, I was surprised at the number that said that life as a slave was better than their lives now. Of course, they were overwhelmingly old, sickly, and poor, and it was the Great Depression. We old geezers and crones often cast a golden haze over our past when, as someone wrote, running was as easy as breathing.

  • Bruce 6225||

    You are not going to get thru to them. American college women are out defending 'the Islamic minority', without even noticing that Islam is the great oppressor of women. Insane!

  • mtrueman||

    "American college women are out defending 'the Islamic minority', without even noticing that Islam is the great oppressor of women. Insane!"

    Not insane. It's exactly how the enemy, (women, communists and muslims) works together to steal your freedom.

  • CE||

    But everyone was equal.... equally miserable.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online