I am not sure about the 1950s in Russia. But to add some color to this patriotism, I have heard many stories from my grandfather in India who had fought for freedom against the British, where it was quite common for people to put country first, strongly identify themselves with the freedom movement and write letters to loved ones about missions/movements they are going to take part in where they might not return and how they hoped their sacrifice would lead to a better and free India.
Right now the politics is shit. And hence we aren't able to relate to this. And it would be insane for us to write a letter to loved ones with political statements. But at that time, when it was a national movement, maybe it wasn't that odd.
The fact that it surprises many is telling, actually. Used to be much more common to have strong political opinion, back then y'know?
Also the guy already abandoned said wife and kids and literally went to space for the government, sounds like a strong selection biais
I doubt they would make you a cosmonaut without being a convincing communist, the same way they wouldn't probably make you an American astronaut if you were one.
If he were a doubter, it would still make sense to include that to potentially make it easier for his family to obtain or preserve a decent position in the Soviet society. These sorts of heroes were supposed to be idols and demigods of the country. This wasn't a society that would respect you having a private apolitical part of life, especially for a man of such a position.
I almost wrote how people are clueless about living under totalitarianism, where there can really be no such thing as truth or honesty. Except maybe heavily drunk in a small company in a dacha, if you're feeling adventurous. But really I think people would often pay lip service to any social orthodoxy in such a situation (contrary to what you might think), because of the benefits of psychical comfort and fitting in.
> I almost wrote how people are clueless about living under totalitarianism, where there can really be no such thing as truth or honesty
Now let's apply this to the modern days, where declaring yourself as a conservative can kill your career and activists feel justified in screaming to your face on the street if you refuse to regurgitate their rally cries.
If you want to go there, being harassed by an opinionated mob is actually a mostly democratic phenomenon. In an autocracy, it would be a beating, either by the police, or thugs operating in agreement and probably paid by the police. You wouldn't even think of speaking openly of your views, or being beaten, as of things a sane person would do. Not condoning anything BTW.
Look, I think your career ending example would make a better case for what you are trying to argue. If you dig into history of longstanding democratic countries like US and Switzerland, you find plenty of rioting and chaotic infighting throughout centuries. Classic republican (as in, US founders) thinking would be that while unfortunate, this is preferable to a police state being able to establish a true monopoly on violence. Then you could have your "order" and "safety", but at the cost of naturally deteriorating toward thinking and doing only what the central power allows you.
I don't think we are disagreeing. Of course ideological and political conflict are to be expected in any healthy civil society. But my argument is that the threat of violence by the government is no longer what keeps people quiet, no matter how discontent they are.
Honestly yes. While I'm not going to comment on the behavior itself, the difference between individuals a acting as a group and the state is such an important distinction that it's written into our constitution.
Much of the bill of rights is about what the state can't do to you in a way that doesn't impact how private citizens interact. Not saying it's perfect, but I'm far less concerned about an internet mob coming after me than the US government
I'm sure he knew a party officer would read the letter and he wanted to ensure his widow's loyalty wouldn't be questioned. Such was life in the Soviet Union.
It’s not just a political organisation, it’s a political movement that completely reorganised and changed Russian society since 1917. One may argue, that it’s the reason behind accelerated economic and scientific development that lead to space exploration.
I think the America parallels to this statement would be God, democracy, "our way of life" and such, references to which would not at all be unexpected in a letter such as this from the 60's.
Americans think "communism" is an icky political thing that Soviets were coerced to like, unlike "freedom and democracy (TM)", worthy abstract ideals that all Americans (nay, all Humans) should rightfully worship naturally and organically.
It's pretty amusing watching you trying to lay a trap and then beating up a strawman with your sarcasm. This letter was meant for the masses to read, and not to be kept in private between him and his family. Not the regional flair of political messaging it contains is telling, but the fact that it contains political messaging at all.
If my wive went on a risky mission and died about it, and all I get from her was a letter about "freedom", "democracy" and maybe "our great nation" and stuff like this, it would break my heart even more.
The reason those seem starkly at odds is not likely to be a result of devotion so much as the tyrannical structure that typically surfaces around the former persuasion, compelling (usually by continual threat) such affirmations repeatedly.
