The ‘Homo Sovietus’

She received the Nobel Prize as a journalist, and was the first writer to achieve that award for her books, in which she originally practiced this function. Some time ago I commented on her book on Chernobyl, which seemed to me a model and, now that I have just read it, I would like to talk about that magnificent report that is “The end of the ‘‘”. It is a book of nearly 700 pages in which, through interviews with different people, the author describes the in Stalin’s time and after, when there was a very big division in the USSR after Gorbachev raised a critical voice about what had happened in the time of Lenin and Stalin, and Yeltsin defended a line more directly linked to the principle of the revolution

Svetlana Alexievichto draw this x-ray of the USSR, he interviews hundreds of people, from very different situations, throughout that immense country and what he achieves is a fairly diverse picture of the different reactions shown among the inhabitants of that complex and diverse nation that is the Soviet Union. There are generals there who commit suicide because they feel that life is not possible without Stalin, and innocents who have spent 10 or 20 years in the Gulag from which they are released in as surprising and mysterious a way as their sentence in the Siberian camps. The least that can be said is that nobody would like to spend time in that country that, with the endless brutalities of the first Soviet leaders, was able to defeat the Nazi forces with which Hitler tried to finish him off.

The interviews cover a vast section of Russian society, ranging from proud Stalinist leaders who blaspheme against any attempt to modernize and democratize that society, to army officers and pilots who have been elevated socially by rigid education from that country where there was no private society or the possibility of assembling a personal fortune. What Stalin’s supporters were complaining about was not the extremely severe punishments that were imposed at that time and that revolved around strict social discipline, but rather the indications that the harsh and implacable society that had been built by the pioneers of the revolution, was “degenerating”, that is, becoming an individualistic society, in which money seemed to be the great incentive of the people, following the American model.

The book is quite dramatic, especially when it moves away from the cities and the villages appear, with their peasant inhabitants who had received almost no education, and remained ignorant and marginal to all the attractions of life: banquets, a job of hours and days, and the gigantic distances that separated them from life in the cities, where people lived much better, although many of those interviewed proudly claimed their peasant origins. Undoubtedly, for a country of such contrasts, the regime imposed by Lenin and Stalin was inhuman as well as the only one possible to standardize society within that system that we would call military, if it were not plagued with immense injustices. , that is to say, of the precariousness of a life in which any carelessness or mistake could send a person to Siberia for long years. Perhaps the most painful thing about the book is the number of children that circulate through its pages, always starving, taken from their parents by a system in which Spartan education, according to a supposed model established by Lenin and Stalin, educated millions for serve the State, regardless of family and closest friends.

The book of Svetlana Alexievich leaves his readers baffled and impatient: how can one live in a country where children are taken from their parents and sent to a school from which, on the other hand, they graduate as doctors, or laboratory technicians, or officers of the armed forces , that is to say, of a rise in living standards that, however, costs a lot to society as a whole and, above all, entails immense suffering. But the truth is that many defend it, they are proud to be “Stalinists” and they hate the new system in which the incentive is money and in which, as a result, society is divided among those who have everything. and those who have nothing. That is, to return to the principles of that society, which illusion and fantasy called revolutionary.

I think that the system that he uses Svetlana Alexievich It is very fair and presents us with a complex population, subjected to great crises, and in which it cannot be guaranteed that everyone will react in the same way. There are square militants who carry Stalinism to its ultimate consequences, including betrayals of their children and friends, and the leaders who favor some while sending others to the front, in conditions in which they will be the privileged victims. But there is a rigidity and intolerance that prevails as this society raises its living standards to the point of defeating a much more integrated country like Germany, but that, in all the towns that these well-dressed and educated people were occupying, They dedicated themselves, first of all, to persecuting the Jews and killing them in merciless bonfires. It is very difficult to pronounce on it. Surely, the high standards of living reached by the Soviet Union would have been possible without a rigidity that sacrificed the weakest and least related, and these were not only hundreds but thousands of citizens, while they privileged handfuls of chosen ones thanks to friendship, ideological community and, also to Sometimes, to the simple society of thugs. And the victims, who numbered in the tens of thousands at any given time, ultimately damaged the collectivist system that many – and the pages of the book are decisive testimony to this – rejected with all their might.

I do not think that the countries of Latin America, where there are sometimes such huge differences as there were in the Soviet Union, they would choose a system similar to the one created by Lenin and Stalin, at least in the version that this book gives us. That is to say, an implicit violence that, after squeezing society excessively, raises its standard of living and establishes a system in which no one dies of hunger and everyone has a job. My impression is that, given the choice, Latin Americans would opt for a system that is less violent and not subject to so many injustices, that is, one in which the margin of choice would still be possible, and in which there would not be as many victims as in the system communist. But, without a doubt, something must be done with these gigantic inequalities, which today are the heritage of Latin America, so that they gradually diminish, without the victims being sacrificed in this systematic and brutal way.

Svetlana Alexievich he has written a great book, which is bitter to read, but enormously beneficial, in the long run, to its readers.

Madrid, December 2022.

©Mario Vargas Llosa./Press rights in all languages ​​reserved to Ediciones El País SL 2022

We would like to give thanks to the writer of this article for this remarkable content

The ‘Homo Sovietus’