If I can find the Charles Crane memoir, is that something that could be machine translated? It is not a language issue, but rather a abysmal formatting issue
I don't recall Shalamov mentioning pre-1917 criminals, but I read his work 25 years ago or more.
I'm not claiming that the criminals were noble savages or whatever, but it's a fact that they had a moral code and behavioral standard, and would have trials for violating them, with those found guilty being executed. Obviously, it was an inverted code, and these were not nice people. But compared to the commies, who had spent decades starving and murdering people who had done nothing to them for ideological reasons, got their nuts caught in their own wringer, and then CONTINUED HAVING PARTY MEETINGS WHILE BEING WORKED TO DEATH IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS...I mean, the criminals were bad, but the commies were just absolutely despicable.
Were they "made that way by society"? I recommend this incredible book, Крещеные Крестами, by Eduard Kochergin, where he describes his travels as a child escaping a series of Siberian orphanages and returning to European Russia during and after WW2. He presents a look at these people and their lives from the inside. In fact, I want to review this with Dictator's Den...
Impressive of Dictator's Den to rate Shalamov above Soljenicin (the former describes the latter lecturing him on what kind of writing sells in the US; interesting that an American senses which is the real deal.)
It's true that he was a communist but I don't think his special contempt for the criminal lowlifes stems from their special contempt to him as a communist. He mainly describes their treatment of regular non-communist non-criminals, who in the criminals' own legal system have rights on par with inanimate objects, and concludes that they are lowlifes seemingly correctly. As to whatever criminals themselves have to say about their treatment of other inmates, and their supposed special contempt for communists - Hamas people sometimes say something about Zionists and occupation, but they revert to describing all Jews as subhuman in other fora; I suspect something similar at play here.
A sort of a counterpoint is Bukovsky, a non communist political prisoner from another time, cheerfully describing how criminals liked him and even killed a KGB informant for him. I don't know whether this tells us more about Soviet criminals or Bukovsky himself.
Commies are forever emoting outrage on behalf of muh obressed workers. In this case, the obressors are professional criminals.
As unpleasant and amoral as the urkas were, they had some points in their favor. First, they mostly came from the legions of bezprizorniki, homeless orphans who had been made that way by the commies. Second, unlike the commies who changed their beliefs and policies on a dime, they had a consistent ethical, behavioral and moral code and would die for violating it. Third, their exploitation of the simple convicts around them was motivated by considerations of survival-умри ты сегодня а я завтра-whereas the commies' exploitation was motivated by policy and ideology.
Shalamov was imprisoned early enough to meet criminals who've been doing it since before 1917; the highest ranking criminals would all have been "made that way by the Czarist regime" or whatever (isn't a commie talking point to claim that criminals were "made that way" by society?..)
Regarding their "dying for their beliefs" - Shalamov does a serviceable job illustrating how their "moral code" is not a moral code but rather a set of self-serving behaviors which of course they will betray if it serves them. A good example is the "bitch wars" when lots of those criminals did not in fact want to die when made to fight in WWII, despite their "moral" code putting someone willing to cooperate with the authorities, and even (*gasp*) join an armed force, at the lowest rung of their social hierarchy, and labeling them "bitches". Well, when large numbers of those "bitches" came back from the war and were arrested for new crimes they committed, they were of the opinion that the laws should be changed to account for extraordinary circumstances of the war. However the thieves that weren't hauled to the front lines thought that the law is the law, and bitches are bitches. Unfortunately this deeply held moral belief ran into the reality of there being too many bitches to abuse the way the sacred law mandates without them fighting back; in fact a constitutional crises happened with some bitch taking initiative and inventing a procedure where an old-school thief either kissed a knife to pledge allegiance to the new legal regime he came up with, or he was stabbed with that knife. In the ensuing "bitch wars" taking place across the GULAG, about 10 thousand criminals perished - a terrible crime against humanity by the communists, and during those wars, some "lawless" factions emerged repudiating both legal systems and killing the adherents of both equally.
Finally, their abuse of other convicts was not motivated by considerations of survival - firstly it continued their legal theory and practice from before they were imprisoned; secondly, freezing a loaf of bread and letting a woman try to bite a chunk of that loaf while sexually abusing her is not something necessary for survival but rather their idea of entertainment.
Communists love criminals for the same reason they love Islamists - because they, like communists, are a force working towards the destruction of society, which is the main pillar of the communist program; instead of saying it like it is, they invent theories why criminals are actually good - for example, they're "socially close to the proletariat", or they were "made that way" by capitalist society. I feel that we shouldn't do a "reverse communist" thing where we find nice things to say about criminals because we identify with their hatred of communists.
I have a deepL key, I would love to machine translate these. If you give me the titles and authors I should be able to find online copies. Thanks.
Sorry, the titles and authors of what?
The Russian language only memoirs or novels mentioned. I tried searching by name for Bistrolyotov variations on that name and could not find anything.
Here's Bystroletov’s book:
https://libking.ru/books/adv-/adventure/369014-dmitriy-bystroletov-puteshestvie-na-kray-nochi.html
If I mentioned any other ones, please let me know and I'll find them.
If I can find the Charles Crane memoir, is that something that could be machine translated? It is not a language issue, but rather a abysmal formatting issue
https://archive.org/details/ldpd_10973088_000/ldpd_10973088_000/
if you click the .txt file it is basically a rough notepad file
https://archive.org/stream/ldpd_10973088_000/ldpd_10973088_000_djvu.txt
I don't recall Shalamov mentioning pre-1917 criminals, but I read his work 25 years ago or more.
I'm not claiming that the criminals were noble savages or whatever, but it's a fact that they had a moral code and behavioral standard, and would have trials for violating them, with those found guilty being executed. Obviously, it was an inverted code, and these were not nice people. But compared to the commies, who had spent decades starving and murdering people who had done nothing to them for ideological reasons, got their nuts caught in their own wringer, and then CONTINUED HAVING PARTY MEETINGS WHILE BEING WORKED TO DEATH IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS...I mean, the criminals were bad, but the commies were just absolutely despicable.
Were they "made that way by society"? I recommend this incredible book, Крещеные Крестами, by Eduard Kochergin, where he describes his travels as a child escaping a series of Siberian orphanages and returning to European Russia during and after WW2. He presents a look at these people and their lives from the inside. In fact, I want to review this with Dictator's Den...
Impressive of Dictator's Den to rate Shalamov above Soljenicin (the former describes the latter lecturing him on what kind of writing sells in the US; interesting that an American senses which is the real deal.)
It's true that he was a communist but I don't think his special contempt for the criminal lowlifes stems from their special contempt to him as a communist. He mainly describes their treatment of regular non-communist non-criminals, who in the criminals' own legal system have rights on par with inanimate objects, and concludes that they are lowlifes seemingly correctly. As to whatever criminals themselves have to say about their treatment of other inmates, and their supposed special contempt for communists - Hamas people sometimes say something about Zionists and occupation, but they revert to describing all Jews as subhuman in other fora; I suspect something similar at play here.
A sort of a counterpoint is Bukovsky, a non communist political prisoner from another time, cheerfully describing how criminals liked him and even killed a KGB informant for him. I don't know whether this tells us more about Soviet criminals or Bukovsky himself.
Commies are forever emoting outrage on behalf of muh obressed workers. In this case, the obressors are professional criminals.
As unpleasant and amoral as the urkas were, they had some points in their favor. First, they mostly came from the legions of bezprizorniki, homeless orphans who had been made that way by the commies. Second, unlike the commies who changed their beliefs and policies on a dime, they had a consistent ethical, behavioral and moral code and would die for violating it. Third, their exploitation of the simple convicts around them was motivated by considerations of survival-умри ты сегодня а я завтра-whereas the commies' exploitation was motivated by policy and ideology.
Shalamov was imprisoned early enough to meet criminals who've been doing it since before 1917; the highest ranking criminals would all have been "made that way by the Czarist regime" or whatever (isn't a commie talking point to claim that criminals were "made that way" by society?..)
Regarding their "dying for their beliefs" - Shalamov does a serviceable job illustrating how their "moral code" is not a moral code but rather a set of self-serving behaviors which of course they will betray if it serves them. A good example is the "bitch wars" when lots of those criminals did not in fact want to die when made to fight in WWII, despite their "moral" code putting someone willing to cooperate with the authorities, and even (*gasp*) join an armed force, at the lowest rung of their social hierarchy, and labeling them "bitches". Well, when large numbers of those "bitches" came back from the war and were arrested for new crimes they committed, they were of the opinion that the laws should be changed to account for extraordinary circumstances of the war. However the thieves that weren't hauled to the front lines thought that the law is the law, and bitches are bitches. Unfortunately this deeply held moral belief ran into the reality of there being too many bitches to abuse the way the sacred law mandates without them fighting back; in fact a constitutional crises happened with some bitch taking initiative and inventing a procedure where an old-school thief either kissed a knife to pledge allegiance to the new legal regime he came up with, or he was stabbed with that knife. In the ensuing "bitch wars" taking place across the GULAG, about 10 thousand criminals perished - a terrible crime against humanity by the communists, and during those wars, some "lawless" factions emerged repudiating both legal systems and killing the adherents of both equally.
Finally, their abuse of other convicts was not motivated by considerations of survival - firstly it continued their legal theory and practice from before they were imprisoned; secondly, freezing a loaf of bread and letting a woman try to bite a chunk of that loaf while sexually abusing her is not something necessary for survival but rather their idea of entertainment.
Communists love criminals for the same reason they love Islamists - because they, like communists, are a force working towards the destruction of society, which is the main pillar of the communist program; instead of saying it like it is, they invent theories why criminals are actually good - for example, they're "socially close to the proletariat", or they were "made that way" by capitalist society. I feel that we shouldn't do a "reverse communist" thing where we find nice things to say about criminals because we identify with their hatred of communists.