From: RUBAN@hartford.bitnet ("Timur Y. Ruban")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: RE:RE: Some thoughts on ... culture
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:53:00 GMT
Reply-To: "soc.culture.soviet via ListServ" <SCS-L@indycms.iupui.edu>

From:         Sergei Borodin <sergei@UPENN5.HEP.UPENN.EDU>

>> BTW, I consider (my personal opinion) usage of
>>'mat' in public places as one of signs that one is moving in that
>>direction (a good 'hot' word sometimes does not hurt, but in certain quantitie
s
>>and not in public discussions).
>
>  Agree. And it was certainly true in xSU, and I still get shocked
>  when I hear something like that in *russian* movies. However, we
>  might have a different phenomena here. In American movies, which
>  actually make a mass culture, swear words are a must, so people
>  get used to it.  I guess, many people from xSU might consider it
>  as a simbol of liberation, especially thinking about xSU as
>  a "prison of nations".

Interesting point - I have never thought about it that way.  More actually,
as the destruction of balance between sub-cultures inside of USSR.
  For instance, swearing (particularly 'mat') was trite commonality in certain
particulr of such subcultures (or some of them).  Each of such sub-cultures was
living in its own political, social and even geographical (did'n you have the
divisions of regions in the city where you lived, in which where living 'vyshki'
'z'loby', )  Kiev, for instance, was divided pretty much.  The first (main one)
between new and old cities (Right and Left banks of Dnipro).  Than we had
borrows with 'priveleged' (Pechersk, 'Krest' - sorry, Kreschatik, partually
areas of Podol, Kurenivka, etc.) who had their own environment, their own lan-
guage, their own fashion in everything.  At the other side, there was Bereznyaki
Rusanivka and Borschagivka (right bank) that were primarily populated with
'migrants' from rural areas and were called (please, no offense to our rural
friends in nets or those who lived in mentioned borows), 'z'loby'.  This
people had their own culture, with own values and fashions.  I've spend enough
time in both of them, and I can testify that each of them was pretty different
from each other, though many of inhabitats had similar roots.  BTW, the division
was not only by borrows but even by blocks and houses - 'Komitetskie doma' in
Solominka, for instance, or "Gosplanovskie doma" all along the blvd. of Druz'by
narodov.
  Essentially, a lot of this bioses and small environments were broken with the
events of past 6 years.  Sub-cultures were mixed even more, and as a result we
can see certain signs of larger sub-cultures everywhere (including swearing).

>  Actually, I had a couple of friends
>  back in Russia, who were involved in movie business and they
>  saw a sort of "bone tone" to swear in public - not that they were
>  "low lifes" but rather the environment they worked in makes the
>  things different (recent soviet movies -"chernuha" - perfectly
>  prove my words - like a shit called "Taxi Blues").

  Actually, 'kinematographiya' in xUSSR, together with Unions of Writers, Com-
posers, and other 'Deyatelej Kultury' (perfectly shown in 'Master..') were
in many ways similar to those of US's Hollywood (I A


>  I, myself, cant't resist when I see a trite joke posted by a woman.
>  Zasluzhila, dura.

  :-)

>  There are certain standards and values and
>ethics, which indicates other signs (like don't eat with your legs, for instan-
>ce :-)

  Kinda hard, isn't it?

>  For instance, someone said that Sovoks are always ignorant to how surrounding
>will look at them.  Are too straight forward.  Too impolite.  Too loud.  I
 mean,
>there are many 'prejudices', but the point is that all these characteristics
>I can find in myself, and sometimes not!  Even more, I can find completely
>opposite.

  Actually, I don't like the term "sovok". The instance you wrote,
  compiled somebodies word, is a bullshit.  People are different and
  no one can make a generalization like that. I often see that
  instance here in the US and I can`t suspect people who demonstrate
  that of being "sovoks". I, myself, won't participate in the discussion
  about characteristics of "sovoks" - it doesn't make any sense to me
  for the reason above - I've seen enough people to make that conclusion.

>There are so many people here, in US, for instance, who will be surprised
>and even shocked at the offer to give or take a copy of software package.

 And very many who will not.  I had that cautiousness, but I
 figured out that it (possible shock) depends on the environment
 and your relationship with a particular person. Several times I
 was offered  varios packages without even asking.

>Well, for my 7 years of being in Soviet computer world (both school, work and
>hobby) I did not find anybody who'd even think about buying of software.

 Indid, there were no software stores and even more - it was hard
 to pay a person you want to buy a software from (cooperatives
 appeared much later than computers and programmers).

>I know people who were
>going into cybernetics without knowledge that their work can be marketable
>(and by the way it is the same thing in many other areas of science in USSR).

  Marketing is an absolutely different issue. Even here in the US
  a good program (or whatever you've done) won't make you rich
  unless properly marketed. You need to be "a right person at
  the right time in the right place" - as it happened with Bill (?)
  Gates - besides the very fact that you have something to offer.

>Software is knowledge.

  No. First of all it's a work and time.  Second, it's a product.

> Selling software means keeping monopoly on knowledge.
>Means preventing somebody from knowing things.

  Not true.  From the consumer point of view, software is no different
  from food and other goods - all involve somebodies labor. If you use
  the labor you should (will you or not - it's another point) pay for
  it. Using your logic one can say that selling food (well, in some
  instances software is a food - you can't do anything without a certain
  package) "means preventing somebody" from eating. True. So what?
  Can't afford - don't eat. Or steal, as it widely done in xSU :-)

> And it is despite the fact
>that a person who created software, for instance, received his/her knowledge
>for free or at much lower cost (Did anybody sell that 2+2=4 ?)

 Not true again - a person who knew that 2+2=4 and was able to
 implement that knowledge put his labor into the product, thus
 increasing the cost of that 2+2.  You see, the things you're
 talking about are very close to that of soviet pricing/paying
 system - soviets always thought that labor costs nothing.
 I always wonder, that a woman who makes a Vologda lace
 (the cost of raw material is negligible) can not afford to buy
 her production in a store.
 It might be sligtly differnt with computers though, because
 besides the knowledge of 2+2 you'd need at least a keyboard
 and the attached hardware, e.g. a computer which costs
 considerable amount of money, and, in case of programmers,
 you need some software tools, like compilers.


>  And still, does anybody in the nets know what happened to old soviet/e.euro-
>pean computers?  Some of them had pretty good potential.

 Potential still remains just a potential. In case of "microsha" -
 it was born dead mainly because of the custom design and the choice
 of the CPU (8080).  DVKs were able to survive in closed market -
 until IBM clones filled the country - even XT beats them up
 with their customized RT-11 like OS and most important - completely
 absent storage devices, i.e. hard drives, and inherently small
 memory - 256 K with some sort of memory management unit, however
 I'm not certain that even that was implemented.
 The only reasonable choice, but it was a choice for hardware hackers,
 that I know of was a Sinclair type computer. Unfortunately, only
 one factory produced it in very small quantities, so it's hard
 to talk about using the computer in "every home".


>S privetom,
>Timur
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet