[realusername]

> It raised several generations of dreamers, who now miss that time dearly, when they could just work on what they liked, whether it’s science or city planning, get a free apartment from state, go to parental leave without worries for the future etc.

In reality that was more a queue for basically anything including apartments, all the high position jobs were taken by party members where you had no chances hence why nobody misses that.

[ivan_gammel]

I will not dispute that there was scarcity of basic things, but within that system things were perceived very differently by people and what I said remains true. Nostalgia about those times does exist, so “nobody” is a strong and incorrect word here.

[realusername]

On the nostalgia subject, the main country where people are having nostalgia is Russia and it's not exactly because of the opportunities but because the soviet union was basically also the last colonial empire in anything but by name and some people still haven't moved past the power that goes with it.

[vintermann]

No, that's not true. There s word for it in German, "Ostalgia", so it's safe to say that some former East Germans feel it, too.

It was also the wealthiest eastern bloc country, and the one with most "economic freedom" relatively speaking. And despite the infamous totalitarian surveillance system, there was a lot more open, civic defiance like conscientious objection to military service, than there was in Russia.

I do think there's a lot more longing for the empire than for the planned economy in Russia today - but that's not so different from the nationalist movements in Hungary, Poland and Ukraine. They just have other ideas of past greatness.

[ivan_gammel]

This is another baseless conspiracy theory, sorry.

[realusername]

Which part exactly? You can verify the nostalgia per countries affected on surveys.

[ivan_gammel]

The reasoning, of course.

It is normal to feel nostalgia about good old times when we were younger, yet you assume the motivation is a “colonial empire” (SU was very different from British or Spanish empire in that sense, I’m not sure “colonial” even applies to it economically — this is a political narrative of former republics, which were colonies of Russian empire).

[realusername]

When you see the current political climate in Russia, it's not really a stretch to link the nostalgia to the power against eastern Europe.

[jltsiren]

Given that party membership was ~10% of the adult population, restricting the best jobs to party members didn't mean much. Ambitious people usually became party members, unless something in their background prevented that. Many people were discriminated against for various reasons, but otherwise the lack of party membership signaled lack of ambition.

[estaset]

Lmao, belonging to the party is not the same as working for the party. Would you say third of americans belong to the democratic __establishment__ and another third - to the republican? So, two thirds of americans are the establishment.

[mantas]

And belonging to the party in soviet era didn't mean working in party structure.

You want to raise beyond certain level in engineering or management? You gotta sign up to the party. But signing the paper may be your only activity in the party.

[jltsiren]

Party membership means different things in different systems.

Soviet/Chinese style communist parties were vanguard parties. Party membership was a privilege you had to earn, and it generally meant that you were a reputable person and potentially a member of the elite. In some sense, it had the same kind of signaling function as having a college degree or passing a leetcode interview.

American Democratic/Republican parties are kind of like semiofficial branches of the government. They have little control over their membership (or their candidates), and membership in itself means very little.

European political parties (at least in the countries I'm familiar with) are private organizations. Party membership tends to be lower than in the Soviet/American systems and signals some nontrivial commitment to the party.

[realusername]

By party members, I obviously meant the nomenklatura and their family.

[nickpp]

> lack of party membership signaled lack of ambition

Or, you know, having a conscience? Values? Ideas? Wanting freedom? Daring to think differently?!