"Red Plenty": When the USSR hoped to outperform the West

Hendryk

Banned
Red Plenty: Inside the Fifties' Soviet Dream is a book by Francis Spufford which depicts, in semi-fictional format, that strange period in Soviet history when the country's leadership--and much of its population--actually believed that the USSR, thanks to technological innovation and the superior wisdom of the command economy, was on the verge of creating an advanced society of prosperity and material plenty. Capitalism would be left behind! Communism would be achieved at last!

red%20plenty.jpg


Has anyone read it?
 
I happen to possess such a copy, which I received from dad for my birthday a week ago. So far I've only read the introduction and a page (school...) but it looks fascinating.
 
People often forget that the fifties were as optimistic time in the USSR as they were in the USA, WW2 was over and everyone was feeling good. Fresh new faces in politics were equally optimistic, but then the 60's came round and the dream wasn't here, JFK was assasinated and Khrushchev was removed.
 
People often forget that the fifties were as optimistic time in the USSR as they were in the USA, WW2 was over and everyone was feeling good. Fresh new faces in politics were equally optimistic, but then the 60's came round and the dream wasn't here, JFK was assasinated and Khrushchev was removed.

And in the later 1950s, the Soviets had their space program to brag about as well.
 
Soviet optimism wasn't so much a byproduct of post-WW2 euphoria, until after the Stalin death, and Beria removal. The short burst of initial happiness Soviets experience after WW2 was brutally stamped out by Stalin between '45 and '47. Terrified by the idea of the Ivans seeing what life was like in the West, Stalin actually doubled-down on the arrests and trials. Scary stats from historians of that era show that during that period more arrests were down by the secret police than in the bloodiest year of pre-WW2 purge - 1937.

In Spring of '53, Stalin was actually planning mass-scale resettlements of various ethnic minorities. Including a plan to ship all the Jews in the USSR to the Siberian-Korean border to create a proto-Soviet Israel. Thankfully for everyone involved, he croaked. Then, when Beria waltzed in and through he had this in the bag, people held their breath. But, when he got removed by Zhukov and Nikita, everyone in the country took that as a signal that all was going to go well.

Khrushchev brought hope to the whole country. Restrictions were eased. Dissidents were allowed to write, just not a lot. And Gulag system came to an end, albeit unintentionally (long story short, slave labor became economically draining because the cost of feeding the people actually outpaced the product of labor; and the rise of an entire new culture of super-gangs within the labor camps terrified the ever loving crap out of the secret police).

The '50s were hopeful time for the Soviets. There was only one fear - War with United States. It was assumed by most ordinary Soviets that it was a natural thing for the USSR to evolve and outpace USA, but the only roadblock could be war with the irrational fearmongering imperialists around the corner with nuclear weapons.

Yet, if you were to ask people of Russia what period of their country's history they would like to live in - I guarantee you, that by a factor of three to one, they'd wish to live during Brezhnev's era.

Because, you cannot discuss the '50s and the cultural thaw, and all the good things Nikita brought the table in USSR, without talking about the end game. Khrushchev destroyed the Soviet agricultural program with his instance of using corn as a stable crop in Russia, mass upheaval of new construction projects (new apartments were created for the Boomers, but they caused internal problems in the country), ossified the country's military (due to the deal he had to make with the old guys in charge of the army in exchange for the coup), and the overall sense of where is it all going.

The '50s were an interesting time for the Soviets, but it was not a time of fond nostalgia, the way the '50s are for United States. It was chiefly remembered for the giddy sense of relief when Stalin finally kicked the bucket, and the uncertainty Nikita brought. His criticism of the excess of his society made a lot of people uncomfortable. Not just politicians, but everyone who benefited from the purges. The entire infrastructure of the Soviet Union in the '50s was staffed by men and women who got there because their predecessors disappeared one night. They got ahead by not asking questions, and here was a funny bald man who asked questions and made people feel weird about it.

Brezhnev was stagnation, but his was a gentle decay of people laughing at the slogans in private and lauding them in public, a comfortable hypocrisy and good concept of what is going on. The '50s brought waaaay too many questions to the Soviets on average to be considered a happy go lucky time.
 

Hendryk

Banned
I finally bought the paperback edition and read it. It's a good book, I found myself surprisingly engaged with the recurring characters, but overall I'm slightly disappointed: I was expecting more retrofuturistic speculation on what that hypothetical bountiful Communist society promised by Khrushchev would look like. Instead the bulk of the book is about the nuts and bolts of the post-Stalinist Soviet economy, and how the men who managed it tried--and ultimately failed--to get it to outperform Western-style economies.

So, it makes for very interesting reading if you want an idea of what it was like to work for a command economy or simply to live in one. But the bright future promised by the book cover turns out to be as elusive as Khrushchev's promise: it's always around the corner, until it no longer is and we move on to the content stagnation of the Brezhnev era.
 
It's a very interesting book and I liked it.

I have been actually reading other book which discuss same topic called Suuruuden laskuoppi (the Arithmetics of Great Magnitude). It's very intriguing to learn that for short time in the early 60's Soviets were almost at the same level with Americans in computer technology. Theoretically they were even years ahead but usually bureaucracy prevented wild experiments with new ideas. They had even plans for early Internet but they were forgotten when Hrustsov was thrown out. Soviets had also strange habit to build one computer for one purpose which meant more work for programmers.
 
I've read it; it's a very good book. Although like others have said, I do wish that a look was taken at a post-scarcity Soviet Union. Put the prose and point of the book makes it a very good one.
 
It's a very interesting book and I liked it.

I have been actually reading other book which discuss same topic called Suuruuden laskuoppi (the Arithmetics of Great Magnitude). It's very intriguing to learn that for short time in the early 60's Soviets were almost at the same level with Americans in computer technology. Theoretically they were even years ahead but usually bureaucracy prevented wild experiments with new ideas.

Reminds of a joke from my Russian colleague:

The party bureaucrat was lecturing the students on the magnificence of Soviet engineering:

"See the great USSR tanks: as good as the west, only bigger. See the great USSR rockets: as good as the west, only bigger."

A student asks, "what about computers and microchips?"

"They are also as good as the west, only bigger!"

Regards

R
 
Top