Talk:New Soviet man

Untitled

In a Glossary -- Soviet Union within its "Federal Research Division / Country Studies / Area Handbook Series", the Library of Congress says

A theoretical goal of several Soviet regimes to transform the culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse peoples of the Soviet Union into a single Soviet people, behaving according to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (q.v.).

The "Cold War Guide" probably lifted it from there, IMO. --Jerzy (t) 21:13, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Where to find more

Yeah, I found the Library of Congress's link as well as tons of other useful stuff on and about the Soviet Union, but I am really interested to find out more about this New Soviet Man. Anyone has ideas about this or suggestion on where to look for more information/details? Thanks for your help.

There are hardly any first-hand documents about the building of the New Soviet man, but you can try to find propaganda meterials and old university textbooks on Marxism-Leninism. Samnikal 07:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Bernard Bykhovsky's "The New Man in the Making" (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House), cited at the end of this article? I haven't been able to find a trace of it. Ukasiac 21:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Homo sovieticus should be merged here to provide the sourcing/criticism this article lacks. --Leflyman^Talk 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• no merge: nothing in common. New Soviet man is Soviet ideal. Homo Sovieticus is a slur. What is missing is an article, kind of Psychology of Soviet people or something, which in a neutral way describes a highly controversial subject. `'mikka 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they have everything in common: "Homo Sovieticus" is a satirical criticism of the ideal of "New Soviet Man" -- as noted in the article itself, "In many ways it meant the opposite of the New Soviet man..." and is clear from the BBC article, Thorny legacy of 'Soviet Man'. New Soviet Man doesn't even have a single reference. A general "Psychology of Soviet people" article would be a whole 'nother thing -- and likely Original Research. There's no precedent in Category:Social_sciences for such an article.--Leflyman^Talk 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This criticism is one mouse click away. No reason to have clearly separable topics in one article. `'mikka 01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Sources

Did the USSR ever use the term "New Soviet man"? I googled extensively, and so far I have not found one positive use of the term from the Soviets themselves, only use by westerners. --Gary123 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes it did! You probably googled something incorrectly. - Altenmann >t 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question literally as it was asked: Yes they did, and you can find lots of Russian use of the phrase if you Google the original Russian words: " новый советский человек ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.109.12 (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mostly Anticommunist Crap

And beneath even wikipedia de facto standards, which is why I placed the tags. The supposed quote by Trotsky is especially outrageous. That communism seeks to raise Man up in to a completely new level is hardly anything to be ashamed of however. Rather you would think it would be the advocates of an animalistic and inevitable "human nature" who would want to hide their backward aspirations for humanity. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, upon reconsideration just pulled the "quote" in its entirety:

Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution  :

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"

Richard Pipes Communism: A History (2001) ISBN 0-812-96864-6, pages 68-69.

There may be a passage in Literature and Revolution corresponding to this, if so it can be put back with a reference to it, not the dubious translation by this anti-communist polemicist. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it, its the next to the last ¶ in Ch. 8, so putting back as an actual quote, dunno where the scurrilous crap above came from. If you compare the actual text with the above you will see a classic case of POV editing and purposeful distortion which appears in this case to have had multiple hands from the hack academic to the editor that placed the above. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of subject neutrality

To complain about wikipedia de facto standards and then put in this one-sided view as an opinion is patently hypocritical: "Rather you would think it would be the advocates of an animalistic and inevitable "human nature" who would want to hide their backward aspirations for humanity." This statement shows clear bias against those who disagree with communist philosophy and action, and attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with Marxist views as supporting a "backward" view that man simply operates on a principle of being "red in tooth and claw" and can do no better; this is simply untrue and as a criticism more reveals the communist view that left alone, without the the social tinkering of communists, man is nothing more than a selfish brute in need of "proper educating and regimentation". Truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.210.119 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tag added

I have added the dubious tag because:

A) The quote which tries to show there was such a thing as a proyect re the New Soviet Man "as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" leads to Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, who was not a an ideologist -or even a member- of such party, but of something called National Bolshevism.

B) The quote from Trotsky suffers from several problems: the translation appears to be questionable and it appears to refer to art. More questionable is Trostky's possition as representing the ideology of the party. It could be argued he represented -at most- a faction.

C) Mayakovsky's poem cannot be said to constitute -or represent accurately- the soviet "ideology" on the subject. Certainly is about individualism being of no consecuence, but colectivism or solidarity does not ammount to a 'proyect for a new man', soviet or otherwise.

D) No other soviet sources are given (maybe Bernard Byhovsky, but we do not know who he is/was, when he wrote or in what context.

E) The quote from Wilhelm Reich is irrelevant. Not only he was not a member of the comunist party of the soviet union but wasn't even rusian o around there when it all happned. Even if he had been it is not a proof of any tentative about a putative proyect for a soviet man: he asks a question about the "socio-economic system". Assuming there was such a proyect, the quote could be interpreted as raising doubts about the need for it: if the "socio-economic system" creates such and such results (nore: the socio economic system, not a new man program), and those results are inherited, will such changes "make any authoritarian forms of government unnecessary?"

This puts the whole point of the article in doubt.

Apparently there are quotes from members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I'm afraid I cannot read russian, so I cannot comment. But if there are, please use those. Thanks Lnegro (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article sucks, but it is hardly dubious. Google books search quickly shows the general validity of the article. I guess the current state of the article is because nobody really cares today about the "New Soviet Man", nor about "Communist Man". Now answering to your points:

A) There is nothing wrong about references to non-Communists, even to its opponents. While I agree that the introduction must be based on the definitions of the very "authors" of the concept, an outside view is indispensable for wikipedia's concept of "neutral point of view", which requires multitude of opinions. For this reason I added a ref to Berdyaev (and much more cna be added from his book).

B) I put the quote from Trotsky in a proper context. And BTW I disagree his quote refers to art only, despite his article title.

C) Late Mayakovsky is commenoly recognized to represent the Soviet ideology. And there is no contradiction revealed by your "but colectivism or solidarity does not ammount to..." I am afraid you are making a logical fallacy here (I forgot its name). The article does not say that "collectivism amounts to NSM"; it says that collectivism is part of NSM. In fact, there is nothing "new" in any and all the traits of the NSM.

D) Yes, this is a real problem.

E) See A). Certainly, it would be absurd that only a "member of the comunist party" to have a say in the matter.

In conclusion, while your tag is a valid "red flag", your criticism is valid only in a single point, D). Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychological consequences - Error, non-neutral, request to delete it.

1) This section says Soviet people often called themselves "sovki", yet this term is derogatory, I doubt it was used at the time but those it names; I myself, never heard (or used, or knew) it then, and now it is used by those disliking Soviet time. 2) The citation from Kon describes impact of being a Soviet man as a negative one. While I (or any other Soviet man) may disagree, I understand that this opinion is as valid as my disagreement. However, the section ONLY gives this one negative citation, while surely, there are positive ones (and maybe other negative ones?). And having only this one negative point view surely does not benefit this article, making it non-neutral in a bad sense. So, can the section be removed, unless more information on psychological consequences is added. 87.228.26.123 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

YOu write "While I (or any other Soviet man)" -- I don't know what kins of Soviet man you were. Did you ever hear "shag vpravo, shag vlevo - rasstrel" ? Of course those whe never in their life wanted to make "step lift, step right" across the "party line", they lived happy life, especially if they were close to some kind of "kormushka". - Altenmann >t 10:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Wilhelm Reich quote in "Intent" section

Wilhelm Reich was a notable anti-Stalinist, and his opinions on human nature are in line with bog standard Humanism. In the Mass Psychology of Fascism, he argues that human nature does not need re-shaping, but that the fetters on human nature are social in origin, the cumulative effects of two thousand years of patriarchal civilization (paraphrasing him here). This article is in desperate need of a re-write to make clear whether or not there actually was an attempt at the "new Soviet man" or if this just a trope from 20th century ideological anti-communist tracts. Situwannabe (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There could be a unjustified deed to a similarly ordinary wntry

К такому же обычному входу может быть неоправданный поступок

Benzer şekilde sıradan bir girişe haksız bir fiil olabilir

类似的普通条目可能存在不正当行为

我有一些事情我宁愿讨论一下，然后再就历史是如何在制作的同时写下任何结论，而所有观众都充分尊重，我们不需要警察留下来，他们的声音会如此 它应该是 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1F7:1A0A:E4DD:6DE7:2F41:D614 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)