As a Russian-American this comes off as complete BS. I've seen this written before and it's always in the form of "It's not us that smile too little, it's you Americans that are fake and smile too much!".
For one, Americans don't just smile to be polite. For the most part it's genuinely conveying positive emotions.
Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural. It's because they are genuinely more cynical miserable people. This is completely a generalization and there are tons of exceptions on an individual level, but on average life (especially in the cities) is more cut throat, it's cold, the authorities are corrupt, people are asshole to each other in public, and if anything goes wrong you can be darn well be sure that no one will help you[1]. There is no sense of community, or impulse for people to help each other out and being nice to strangers. So naturally you're worried you'll get robbed or whatever - so you keep to yourself, don't make eye-contact, and don't smile.
If you go to the country side, people are a lot more likely to smile at you.
A bit of an aside - I've found it's also a very Slavic thing. Prague had very similar miserable faces, which Budapest was full of smiles (though economically the countries were very similar)
[1] I remember a story my friend told me of how he was on the subway and a bunch of skinheads beat up an African college student. After they left, no one did anything to help the kid, and everyone just pretended like nothing happened. A good ol' "it's non of my business" attitude.
As an American who married a Russian and lived in Russia for a while, I find this article to be quite accurate.
When visiting for the first time, I asked my (then-acquaintance) why women never smile at me. She said "if they smile at you, that means they are easy." Basically, they are saying they like me and I should introduce myself. Or, like the article mentioned, maybe I look funny.
You are right in that it is cultural, but the reasons you state aren't the only ones. They are in general pretty unhappy people, as the saying goes "God suffered, so should I." However, the younger generation is stepping beyond the suffering attitude, and yet they still don't smile, so that isn't the only reason.
Your example of the skinheads is just another example of the bystander effect -- definitely not unique to Russia. Also, Russians are pretty crazily racist, so that causes the story to be moot as well.
Right. A Romanian friend of mine told me that when he moved to the US, he thought that the women would be easy and sleep with him because they were smiling so much.
He was a bit disappointed at the lack of follow-through.
Perhaps he experienced the world with the eyes, and/or followed the news, and thus made a comparative judgement between different countries.
Which, could include stuff like:
"The director of the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Alexander Brod, stated that surveys show xenophobia and other racist expressions are prevalent in 50 percent of Russians."
And:
"In 2006, Amnesty International reported that racism in Russia was “out of control” and estimated the number of Russian neo-Nazis at around 85,000 in 2008."
Of course a lot of those statements could be the usual NGO BS, that they output because they have to output (keeps the funds coming in, etc), or because they act as agents of foreign interests trying to paint a bad picture etc. This happens more often than not.
But in general, it IS possible to say that a nation is more or less racist than another -- it's not an inherently moot proposition like some people here imply.
There IS after all something like an external reality. I'd, for example, would call a country with 100 racist attacks for every 1000 citizens more racist than one with 30 racist attacks for every 1000 citizens...
85,000 neo-nazis out of 145.5 million Russians are just 0.05% of the Russian Population.
Speeking of Xenophobia, So wanting to keep their country to themselves (like every nation and color of people try to) is racist? Would you say the same about the Japanese, Israelis, Kenyans, or Koreans? I ask this because I've noticed Europeans today are being held to extremely high standards while other races and nationalities are not. It's like there's a racist witch trial and whites are under the microscope while everyone else dances around to the same exact tune and escapes criticism.
I agree and I had my remark down voted, you know it by the number of suicides.
We pay a price for living with terrible weather, with no sun light half of the year, where you can't get out of buildings because it is so freezing cold.
I would say what you see in places like Costa Rica(pura vida!!) is genuine happiness because people need much more the Sun and friendships for being happy than a Ferrari or whatever we could buy.
I think there genuinely are different norms for human interaction in different cultures. Why should people in "The South" be so much more famous for being insincerely pleasant than, say, people in Arizona or southern California? The climate in the deep south is absolutely miserable a large portion of the year, with oppressive head and humidity, yet they are infamous for being pleasant on the surface.
Looking at the map on this page, I see no casual correlation between how artificially pleasant a states population stereotypically is, and their suicide rate: http://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures Notice New Jersey and New York beating out any Southern state.
Hey now, that's cherry picking data if I've ever seen it. Of course Nevada has a high suicide rate. Try comparing Alaska to sunny states where people don't throw their life savings away.
You are misunderstanding me, I am asserting that the data doesn't match the "smiling people live in nice places" theory. Alaskans smile, despite having a high suicide rate and living in a miserable climate. Nevadans aren't know for being particularly pleasant or cold (there isn't a stereotype about the attitudes of Nevadans one way or the other, as far as I can tell) live in a sunny climate and have a huge suicide rate. Coloradans live in an absolutely beautiful state, that doesn't have Alaska's brutally dark winters to boot, their suicide rate is relatively high, but they are neither known for being overly pleasant or particularly cold. Washington has "the Seattle freeze", but has a lower suicide rate than Oregon.
"Climate"<->"is superficially pleasant" is all over the board. Some examples seem to support the theory (allegedly Russia), but plenty of others seem to directly contradict it (Alaska, with a miserable climate, high suicide rate, and very outwardly pleasant people). The South has a miserable climate, have plenty to be miserable about (poverty, literacy, lingering racism, etc) yet are very 'warm' people, New York has a worse climate, yet a lower suicide rate, but yet again rather cold or distant people.
This "Russians don't smile because they are miserable. Americans smile because they are happy" stuff is just pop-psych nonsense. The real world is not that simple.
Why is it difficult to accept that different groups of people, with different heritages, cultures and traditions, might have ever so slightly different ways of presenting themselves to society and interacting with each other? It seems very implausible to me that this might not be the case.
Consider other sort of differences, besides just "smiles or doesn't". For example, consider that cultural differences with hugging, cheek kissing, hand holding, etc are all pretty non-controversial. Nobody is trying to explain that platonic friends in California don't hold hands because Californians don't make close friends like Saudi Arabians do. Anyone trying to say that would be laughed at.
>Alaska, with a miserable climate, high suicide rate, and very outwardly pleasant people
Were did you get the last one from?
>Nobody is trying to explain that platonic friends in California don't hold hands because Californians don't make close friends like Saudi Arabians do. Anyone trying to say that would be laughed at.
That's because holding hands, is not a core human facial expression, unlike smiling.
Touching others is a core human expression, and has to be suppressed in kids ("boys don't do that, it's gay"). Some cultures do that, others doesn't. No difference between that and smiling to me. - both cultural stuff.
Touching others (in whatever form) is different than "holding hands" in the way some cultures do. The difference is that there are hundrends of ways to touch someone, and thousand of circumstances where you do so. So any particular form is just one of many.
On the other hand, you carry your face and its' facial expression constantly, and your expression is the most basic form of interaction you have with another person socially, with talking as distant second. Furthermore, there are few expressions, are (almost?) all are universal, like smiling and crying.
Heck, you could live in the same room with a person for a month, with all kinds of normal interaction (eating, talking, etc) and never one touch him/her, and much less in any socially meaningful way (like holding hands or hugging). Not at all like avoiding having your face seen.
I honestly don't understand why so many people disagree with you. While this article is not complete BS, many of the examples are just wrong.
>> Russians don't smile in business meetings.
What? Russians do smile in business meetings. In fact, it is considered rude to NOT look in the eye during conversation/handshake and not smile. In general, lots of deals are done by drinking together. And trust me, if you are drinking with me and you are not smiling, then there is something wrong and that deal will not go through.
I feel like the person who wrote this article has been watching too many gangster movies showing criminal Russia of the 90's.
Another reason why many Russians of the new generation don't smile is because of their crooked teeth. But this is changing since braces and other dental work are becoming an accepted practice.
It is true that many people don't smile in public places (airports, metro, etc.) in Moscow but that's Moscow. There are just too many factors for this unique place, which might as well be considered a separate country due its mores.
Try going to different places in Russia and you will see a more welcoming atmosphere with tons of smiles.
> this comes off as complete BS. I've seen this written before and it's always in the form of "It's not us that smile too little, it's you Americans that are fake and smile too much!"
Which is pretty much what the article quotes Russians as saying. Without agreeing with them, of course.
>I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural.
Again, you're agreeing with the article - and contradicting your subsequent explanation, which is mainly economic and judicial.
>It's because [Russians] are genuinely more cynical miserable people.
How is this is any better than some Russians' generalization that smiling Westerners are duplicitous?
No, the article is claiming that to Westerners a smile is neutral and that to a Russian no smile is neutral. The article is making the implication that a smiling Westerner and a non-smiling Russian are expressing the same emotion, it's just that the Westerner is faking something.
The poster to whom you're responding is actually saying that the no smile in Russia is because of an actual underlying difference in the emotions being felt.
>the article is claiming that to Westerners a smile is neutral [...] The article is making the implication that a smiling Westerner [...] is faking something.
I don't see where you got the second sentence as the article's implication. Especially since it's rather contradictory with the first sentence.
I'm trying to see how you find those statements to be contradictory.
Maybe you think that the same concept is being discussed in the two sentences? Really there are multiple concepts at play so calling one of them neutral relative to one another and the other one "fake" isn't a contradiction at all. They're different things.
Just because the emotion being expressed is supposed to be neutral doesn't mean that the facial expression can't be implying something more. The article author's contention is that the facial expression is fake and expressing more of an emotion than is present, given that the "real" underlying emotion is one of neutrality in the smile and no-smile cases.
Because they are separate sides to the same thing. Westerners smile as a "neutral" stance, but to a Russian it feels disingenuous because smiling isn't "neutral" but is suppose to convey something.
I mostly agree. Cannot vouch for other Slavic people, but in Russia "чо лыбишься" (wtf are you smiling at) almost always greets me, and greeted while I was living there. One of the most fundamental reasons for me to move away to the US was this fundamental difference in the psychological makeup, which is expressed in the Russian proverb, "смех без причины признак дурачины": a smile without a reason means the person is without reason. No it does not.
this thread couldn't come sooner. I'm in Minsk, Belarus (very similar to Russia) from SV for the next month to finish our mobile app. One thing I've noticed is how fucking gloomy everyone looks. If you smile the men look intimidating and want to cut your head off and the women roll their eyes...It's as if everyone is a KGB agent and they are constantly suspecting you.
You don't sound like a Russian. You don't think like a Russian. You don't know like a Russian.
Russians don't smile because any person who smiles to a stranger either wants to sell something or is insane. Smiles are for friends, real friends - whopping 2 or 3 of them.
"And if anything goes wrong you can be... No sense of community..."
This part betrayed you. You don't know anything about Russia or Russians. If an African college student attacked a bunch of skinheads, entire subway station would rush to rescue the skinheads.
Your example with african college and skinheads do not show a sense of community, it just shows widespread racism among russians. Because if a group skinheads attacked black or gay the whole subway would still help skinheads to beat that single person, or at best not interfere.
I'll tell you this - back in Soviet times there were little to no racism towards black people. In part due to Soviet Union helping to "liberate" a good chunk of African countries back in 60s (and through people viewing them as our friends) and in part due to black people simply being an oddity. Also the past slavery and segregation matters in the US, the enemy no. 1, helped them winning some inherent sympathy.
But then Perestroyka came and African exchange students somehow managed to become a reliable source of hard drugs. At least in Moscow. And gradually the attitude changed.
That said no one would help a skinhead beaten up in a subway. Whatever the GP is smoking, it's potent.
What does it mean to be a Russian-American? He left the country when he was 5? He was born in US to Russian parents? His comment is pretty ignorant. The article is fairly accurate.
I am talking about people who immigrated as adults. The way he talks about his experience in Russia cues that he belongs to that group. His post may be too harsh, but it is certainly not in the same league with truly ignorant knee-jerk comments about gulag.
> but I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural. It's because they are genuinely more cynical miserable people
I'm not Russian and I don't know any Russian persons directly, I'm from just a little bit to the West, Romania, and wanted to say that we're like the people described in the article, too, i.e. we're only smiling if we really, really mean it.
I think it's a cultural thing, even though I'd have to agree we people in Eastern Europe tend to be more cynical compared to others (we have our good reasons, though). Whenever I go to my grand-parents' village close to the Carpathian Mountains I do have to say "good day" to each and every person I might meet in the street, even though I might not know them directly (I'm a city boy, after all). But were I to smile at the passers-by I'm pretty sure they'd get back to my grand-mother and inform her that the "city grandson" has a strange way of behaving. It's just how things are.
As an American that lived in Russia most of my life. It's not total BS but some of the points you mentioned contribute.
1. No one will help you - true. My group of friends would alway be targeted by skinheads and when we had to fight no one would ever help us. Not even the police.
2. People make eye contact a lot, it's a respect and dominance thing. Walking down the streets of Moscow with your head down is a good way to end up dead (seriously, be aware. My sister was picked up physically once and shoved into the trunk of a car - fast action saved her life).
3. Not all Russians are miserable but I agree on the cynical part. They don't trust anyone. (would you if you were lied too for that long.)
4."people are asshole to each other in public" its not so much about being assholes - people just have shit to do. I can't count how many times i was pushed by a sweet old babushka in the metro. They just assume you have no respect but they also realize you get nowhere by being passive.
Anyway, Russia is a very amazing place and it can be scary. Moscow is very racist and the youth is a big problem (violence).
Would I live there again? In a heartbeat. Never felt more alive.
Can't agree more. People are broken here, I've heard so many times from my mother "don't attract attention, be as everyone". Life was tough, truth could harm. Lying brainwashing system, under control of fools it's better to hide emotions under brick-face. Parts of that system is still around - school, university, city services, army. They are awful.
People are pour, angry, have no sense of life, my friends advice "don't sing and dance outside, it's dangerous". I don't know why they live.
I'm from Prague and I was always baffled by this. How does the smiling thing work? In what situations do you smile? For example, if you're walking on street, do you eye-contact people going in the opposite direction and smile at them?
You don't make eye contact with everyone you walk by, no. But if you do happen to make eye contact, you typically smile - and it would be a little awkward if you didn't.
I think there's a difference between a polite smile of acknowledgement and a smile give to someone that you already know well, however.
I'm in Vienna, Austria (not far from Prague, but generally considered to be part of western Europe) and if a stranger smiled at me for no apparent reason I'd think that she/he is into me, high on drugs or trying to sell me something.
For the last three years I've been living in a very pretty seaside resort town in Vietnam called Nha Trang. In just the last year it's seen a massive influx of Russian tourists and it's completely changed the vibe of the place. They're everywhere now, usually with a scowl on their face and usually dealing with people in a manner that would be considered very brusque and impolite anywhere in the West. Nobody seems to like the Russian tourists, including the Vietnamese, but they bring a lot of money into the local economy so they get the red carpet treatment all the same. But Western tourists are becoming increasingly scarce as word gets out that Nha Trang is not the easygoing friendly place it used to be.
Yeah, we hate them too (and I'm Russian). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When we go on vacation, we try to choose a hotel with less Russians (fluent English helps, since not a lot of my countrymen are comfortable with it yet). Still, somehow EVERY time there's this irritating-lady-with-unbelievably-loud-whiny-child or that always-drunk-and-very-loud-about-it
middle-aged man, they always turn out to be our countrymen. That's not EVERY Russian tourist, mind you, not even a majority of us, but the reverse is, sadly, true - most of those unbearable people are Russian.
Those tourists are kind of like piracy (naval piracy, not digital): due to a very particular mix of historical coincidences, a group of incredibly pronounced jerks have gained considerable power and now they're everywhere. Thing is - those tourists you see everywhere are people of VERY PARTICULAR social and financial standing. In short - they are most likely new to that kind of money (vast majority of Russians don't have enough to go on vacation abroad), they are VERY insecure about it (as in - need to prove, mostly to themselves, that it's not temporary), they're under a lot of pressure (because they're not actually sure why it's THEM getting decent money and not everyone around and because there's a lot of competitors) and they don't know how to handle themselves (once again - they're pretty new to this).
Let's just hope that, like pirates, they will soon become extinct. And for now, on behalf of Russian people at large - we're sorry.
All the Viet business people I've talked to said that when they present these tourists with a menu or a shelf full of goods all they want to do is identify the most expensive option so they can choose it to show off their money. So they fit your description pretty well.
You should not judge about all Russians by those tourists.
Unfortunately, during last 20 years in Russia, being such scoundrel and scumbag, you have pretty high chance to earn good money. Even in Russia nobody likes these (very small number of) people and wants to travel to the resort where there are no "damned Russian tourists". :-)
You might have your opinion, but this article is a re-iteration of something that has been pretty much established by people who study verbal and non-verbal communication (professionally). You might say this has cultural origins in 'Russian misery', but the article outlines present day meanings of smiling and not smiling in Russia and in USA.
how/where would someone be able to study that? sounds like an interesting subject. right now i'm studying for public health related field, and something like that could come very handy.
I don't think it is BS; the article has a very true observation
"Quite often, Russians smile not “at”, but "about" something."
I guess in Russia one must always be aware of hierarchy; one is supposed to be subordinate to the current hierarchy; Smiling is often interpreted as mocking by the higher ups, and as a sign of condescension by peers.
Also Moscow is quite a stressful place; Men have a high chance of dying in their fifties due to heart problems, much higher chance than in other countries.
Not buying the Prague vs Budapest thing -- if anything, Hungary was long notorious for having the highest suicide rate in Europe. (Since eclipsed by Lithuania and Slovenia, it seems.) The Czechs are at #30, only a few notches ahead of the US at 33.
As someone with only naive, cosmetic knowledge in this area, humor me.. but could a lot of it be down to inherited attitudes? Somehow I made it through Anne Applebaum's 28 hour audiobook of Gulag and something that struck me was how the Russian population became trained to keep their heads down and not stand out for fear of being incriminated by others or randomly selected to be thrown into a gulag. And if you learn that demeanor, your kids will too, right? And so on and so forth, down the generations.
You have to dig deeper. In general, impact of soviet period is way overstated by foreigners (I'm Russian myself). The trend you're describing might be true, but some researchers draw its origins as far as Mongolian reign over Russia (roughly XIII-XV century).
If anything, Russian population always shows preference for a strong leadership (which is often appropriate to rephrase as "borderline or outright dictatorship"). Ivan the Terrible was saved from a coup by public support, several times. There's a much joked-about statement "Сталина на вас нет!" ("Shame there's no Stalin to set you straight!"), attributed to crazy old people.
In general, every time there was a violently harsh leader, some people will remember him (or her, in two cases) as incredibly effective. This goes at least a thousand years back, and probably as far as Rurik (legendary Scandinavian ruler INVITED by Russians of the time because "our land is big and rich, but there's no order in it").
We're also always scoring sky-high on "Uncertainty Avoidance" in Hofstede's cultural scale (google it, it's cool), and believe me, it shows in countless ways in day-to-day lives.
So, to summarize: yes, you might very well be right, but you have to shoot MUCH farther then Gulags and Soviets.
So somehow before 1930s people trusted one another better? I believe it seriously lacks evidence. What about people in Western Europe who don't smile all that much really?
Is this some knee-jerk reaction or something? Russia-gulag and all? For a foreigner it is permissible, not so much for a Russian. I think we need to overgrow this if nice things are to be had.
What changed in the 1930s? In Russia if you wanted to keep your head, you kept your head down in 1917, you kept your head down in 1905, and you kept your head down in 1800's and earlier - deportation to Siberia for being unpleasant to ruling class was a thing for centuries before Russia became Soviet.
That's so very simplistic though. You by no means kept your head low in 1905, and 1917 since those were years of revolutions, the later two pretty successful, which brought freedoms unmatched in that time. In what other army was an order compared to Order #1 of 1917 in act? What other nation decriminalized homosexuality in 1917? There were select few to allow women to vote as early as 1917 and none at all to admit women to general workforce as equals. In what other nation had organs directly elected by workers and soldiers (eg peasants) ruled the country at least for one day? Of course it was all very short-lived (not without involvement of armies of certain 'freedom loving' nations), but this one event so utterly debunks this theory of 'keeping your head low'. And even then, 'in 1800's and earlier' were very different times, when people 'kept their head low' pretty much anywhere in the world.
How many unrelated people were executed or imprisoned during and right after 1917 and 1905? How many of the revolutionaries were 'removed' by their own for sticking out?
During the civil war and afterwards, how much the fate and life of common people depended on the whim and 'perception of loyalty to X' ? In order to prosper (or even survive) your allegiance would have to be flexible enough to adapt quickly, or you'd get eliminated. As the saying goes, 'the tall poppies get cut first' - no matter if you were for or against the revolution.
1917 was a result of picking a fight with authority, but the aftermath of 1917 was to eliminate anyone else who'd pick a fight with authority - both outside and within the revolution.
This is what I mean by 'keep your head down'. There's a curse "may you live in interesting times". Living in such times teaches you and the whole society to be mindful about what you say, careful if your beliefs are perceived as proper, and not to pick a fight with authority.
Probably no unrelated people at all were executed or imprisoned in 1917 or 1905. Even for the most frantic career revolutionaries it wasn't uncommon to flee from the deportation and live illegally in Russia or to emigrate.
I don't think what you are describing is in any way specific to Russian Revolution and Civil War. If reasoning like that is justified, you can 'prove' the same thing about any society that lived through a social calamity.
"Probably no unrelated people at all were executed or imprisoned in 1917 or 1905" -- are you serious? Really?
There were bloody purges after 1905 enforcing 'summary punishment' against, say, everyone living in a specific village, in order to make a warning for others. My local area lists 500 official executions of revolutionaries, but 2000+ 'collateral deaths' happened in the process.
1917 was followed by (1) a civil war, (2) class warfare - reprisals against millions of people where the fact if you were killed or deported was determined in part by wealth, but in part by your connections and local denouncements. (3) internal conflicts such as Tambov rebellion which also meant that you can easily lose everything for something your neighbor did.
Most societies that lived through a social calamity did not endure long periods of internal treachery affecting not a small prosecuted minority but huge parts of population - well, Pol Pot and China Cultural Revolution did, but I'd argue that they had similar effects on their societies.
Man, please don't reason in terms "better" or "worse", this is way to nowhere.
I've faced so many cases of mutual aid or lack of it where very different nations was involved, that i generally can't consider this as competition.
Yip, we have a lot of cynics and history moments like "government fired your asses again, hehe", we have advanced prison culture and argo as fell as French do. But if there will be case that i stay without supplies in the middle of apocalypse, Russians isn't the worst choice ))
> As a Russian-American this comes off as complete BS. I've seen this written before and it's always in the form of "It's not us that smile too little, it's you Americans that are fake and smile too much!".
I agree and it always appalls me how these sweeping-generalizations make it to the front page of HN.
>I agree and it always appalls me how these sweeping-generalizations make it to the front page of HN.
Agree because it's somehow wrong? Just 2-3 comments below yours:
"I'm from Prague and I was always baffled by this. How does the smiling thing work? In what situations do you smile? For example, if you're walking on street, do you eye-contact people going in the opposite direction and smile at them?"
I've read articles about Russian sense of community, no behavioral protocols, politeness or rules, but a simple yet strong habit of sharing both bad and good times.
Socialism makes every other person a potential enemy and a potential victim. Resources are scarce. People come to hate one another.
Capitalism makes every other person at worst a neutral non-threat and at best a potential trading partner. Resources are plentiful. People feel benevolent towards one another.
This is not an apology for America; America is only semi-capitalist. You can see Americans getting meaner over time as the country shifts more in the socialist direction. There is less everday that makes America distinct from Europe.
> Socialism makes every other person a potential enemy and a potential victim. Resources are scarce. People come to hate one another.
You're taking a look at countries that have implemented 'socialism' and ended up with what amounts to dictatorships. Do you really think that Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx included someone like Stalin, or the corrupt officials that inhabited governments in the Eastern Bloc?
For all of the rhetoric that the far-right sling around in the US about the evils of Socialism, even they have Socialist policies. The government regulates, picks winners, keeps companies afloat that are 'too big to fail,' Social Security and other welfare programs, etc.
Don't confuse situations where neighbors reports other neighbors who then 'disappear' as having anything to do with Communism or Socialism (or than that they have historically resided together).
Do you think that the life, as envisioned by children, who want to eat only ice cream when they grow up, includes scurvy, diabetes and other effects of such a diet?
>Do you think that the life, as envisioned by children, who want to eat only ice cream when they grow up, includes scurvy, diabetes and other effects of such a diet?
Do you think that people are automata, and any attempt to build a system with X attributes necesarrily also has Y attributes, in the automatic way that eating only sugar leads to diabetes?
Just because there was an attempt to build X (socialism for example), under specific circumstances (e.g less technologically and politically advanced countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia), under specific forces (20th century colonialism, WWII, cold war etc), and with specific people at the helm influencing things all around (Stalin and Mao basically), doesn't mean any attempt to build X in different circumstance will end up the same.
Yes they will. The premise is flawed. Socialism (US term) or social-democracy (Euro term) can work in a democratic society but communism is flawed from the start.
Putting everything in one communal basket and expecting people to behave is a recipe for disaster. Don't make a system which works only when people do not make mistakes or are only driven by their purest feelings.
So your response is to ban ice-cream forever and eat nothing but salads instead?
Because, you know, that's the analogous response to banning all socialism and social-democracy forever just because the Soviet Union didn't turn out well.
My point is that if you try to create a socialist country, but end up with a dictatorship, then you have a dictatorship, not a socialist government. Let's call things by their real names instead of trying to associate secret police and paranoia with the terms "Socialism" and "Communism."
Dictatorship is a form of government[1]. Socialism is an economic system[2]. One does not exclude another. The history shows, though, they come together alarmingly often.
Karl Marx should have envisioned that someone like Stalin might exist in the future and will take over the power, otherwise his perfect Communism system is only applicable to perfect people.
Communism is bad in practice, but it's also bad in theory. It's not like if people were more moral, or more rational, or if we had the government run by a smart computer, communism would be possible. Setting that aside, there's also no reason to prefer communism over a free market, or pretty much anything.
You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist?
On a tangential note, it's not quite right to call the European system socialist. "Social democracy" might be more correct, otherwise people confuse it with communist socialism which is an entirely different regime with much more negative connotations. There are very few things in common between the systems in, say, Sweden and Soviet Russia.
As a European I find it interesting how Americans have started to completely misusing the term 'socialism' especially over the last couple of years. Even those who don't fit the die-hard right-wing profile seem to have started calling any kind of social welfare 'socialsm' without realising what actual socialism looks like.
To me, what's surprising is the contrary: that people call communism "socialism". While here in France, our Socialist Party (in power right now) has always been far from communism.
It feels strange to me to call social welfare anything other than socialism. Maybe it's just a case of French socialisme and English socialism being false friends.
It's because most communist parties in the Eastern Block were initially (or even always) called socialist parties. And many Eastern Block countries were named "socialist republics".
True, and so were all the socialist regimes I mentioned. But after tens of years of propaganda by the communists, the name tends to stick. After the fall of communism, it sticks in a bad way: socialism = communism.
I think that the best people to ask are those that lived under "socialist" regimes (I'm one of them). If I ask almost anybody I know that lived under a socialist regime, they'll probably say the same.
Maybe theoretically socialism is a different thing, but practically it really isn't for a lot of people.
That's a good point and there seem to exist different understandings of the term in different countries. I do wonder where this comes from. In Germany Sozialismus is always understood in the marxist sense and it is furthermore inseperable from the political system of the German Democratic Republic. I am not privy to the finer points of the French Socialist's political agenda, but from my understanding they roughly resemble our Social Democrats.
> You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist?
Yep. I would even include America in that, just to a slightly lesser extent.
> That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist?
Well, who are you comparing to? There aren't really any or many relatively free countries (and there never have been more than 1 or 2 at a time in all of history).
It's not true if you compare it to 19th century America in terms of happiness, nor modern-day Singapore in terms of quality of life.
(In fact, a pet has a better quality of life than a typical American, since they have better access to healthcare.)
> How do you square that with what you've written?
For one, Americans don't just smile to be polite. For the most part it's genuinely conveying positive emotions.
Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural. It's because they are genuinely more cynical miserable people. This is completely a generalization and there are tons of exceptions on an individual level, but on average life (especially in the cities) is more cut throat, it's cold, the authorities are corrupt, people are asshole to each other in public, and if anything goes wrong you can be darn well be sure that no one will help you[1]. There is no sense of community, or impulse for people to help each other out and being nice to strangers. So naturally you're worried you'll get robbed or whatever - so you keep to yourself, don't make eye-contact, and don't smile.
If you go to the country side, people are a lot more likely to smile at you.
A bit of an aside - I've found it's also a very Slavic thing. Prague had very similar miserable faces, which Budapest was full of smiles (though economically the countries were very similar)
[1] I remember a story my friend told me of how he was on the subway and a bunch of skinheads beat up an African college student. After they left, no one did anything to help the kid, and everyone just pretended like nothing happened. A good ol' "it's non of my business" attitude.